officer precinct structure plan · 2018-08-02 · officer precinct structure plan desktop cultural...

OFFICER PRECINCT

STRUCTURE PLAN

DESKTOP CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

A Report to Cardinia Shire Council

July 16 2009

Prepared by

Andrea Murphy & Stacey Kennedy

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd archaeologists & cultural heritage advisors

Suite 4, 46-50 Old Princes Hwy

Beaconsfield Victoria 3807

I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report outlines the results of an Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal historic (hereafter referred to as historic) desktop cultural heritage investigation of the Officer Precinct Structure Plan (OPSP) (hereafter referred to as the activity area) and has been commissioned by the Cardinia Shire Council. The Officer Precinct is situated within the Cardinia Shire, approximately 52km south-east of Melbourne (Figure 1). The Officer Precinct is part of the Cardinia Urban Growth Area. The Cardinia Urban Growth Area is divided into four residential precincts: Beaconsfield, Officer, Cardinia Road and Pakenham, and three employment precincts: Officer Employment, Cardinia Road Employment and Pakenham Employment. The Officer Precinct Structure Plan is part of a development contributions plan which will gauge the necessary requirements for the provision of key social and engineering infrastructure within the Officer Precinct. This desktop assessment is prepared for discussion purposes and reviews the Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage of the area and the potential impact future development of the activity may have on known and potential cultural heritage values. This assessment also provides preliminary management recommendations regarding the mitigation of possible impact to heritage values and obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and The Heritage Act 1995. Relevant background information is presented in Sections 3 and 4. In summary, Aboriginal archaeological sites can occur on any landform, but the highest density is found in close proximity to water sources in this case, the banks of Cardinia Creek and to a lesser extent Gum Scrub Creek. In addition, historic sites can be found throughout the region, though earliest sites (c1800-1850) are associated with pre-emptive rights, none of which occur within the activity area. No consultation with any relevant heritage stakeholder has been undertaken as part of this desktop cultural heritage assessment. However, broad consultation should form part of any future heritage assessment of the activity area. As no Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) had been appointed for the activity area at the time of report finalisation, no consultation with any Aboriginal group was undertaken as part of this cultural heritage assessment. In areas where no RAP has been appointed, AAV are responsible for administering the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. The Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (BLC) and the Boon Wurrung Foundation Ltd (BWF) both have RAP applications pending that include the activity area. If successful, one of these groups will be the primary indigenous consultation group. Part of the RAPs responsibility is to evaluate any cultural heritage management plans (CHMP). Prior to this investigation, twenty-three previously recorded Aboriginal sites have been recorded within the activity area (Table 1; Figure 13). Another forty-eight sites have been located within 2km of its boundaries. Most of these sites were discovered during cultural heritage assessments undertaking ground surface survey of land surrounding Cardinia and Gum Scrub Creeks and monitoring programs conducted for the Pakenham Bypass (Smith 1991; Tulloch 2001; Howell-Meurs & Long 2006; Murphy & Rymer 2007(a), 2007(b), 2008; Murphy, Thomson & Rymer 2007). As a result of previous investigations in the region, land within 200m of the Cardinia and Gum Scrub Creeks has been assessed as having high potential for sites.

II

There is one previously recorded historic site situated within the activity area and five Cardinia Shire heritage overlays (Table 2). These historic sites are situated on the Princes Highway and are associated with early farming practices and industrial development of the Officer region. A brief field reconnaissance was conducted on 21st of May 2009 by Project Archaeologist Stacey Kennedy (Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd). During the survey no Aboriginal or historic archaeological sites were recorded (Section 6). The lack of site identification is considered largely due to the lack of ground surface visibility at the time of survey (Section 5). Based on background research and site distribution models (Section 3.5) the activity area has been assessed as containing areas of low to high archaeological potential for Aboriginal material. A summary of sensitive areas is presented in the table below. Summary of Archaeological Potential within the Activity Area

Heritage Type Potential Deposits Level of Potential

Aboriginal Small numbers of previously disturbed low-density (n<10/pm²) stone artefact scatters throughout the activity area Low to moderate density (10-100/pm²) stone artefact scatters within 50m of previously recorded sites, Gum Scrub Creek and Tea Tree Swamp. Low to moderate density (10-100/pm²) stone artefact scatters within 200m of current & previous water courses/drainage lines (Cardinia,Creek)

High Low – Moderate Moderate

Historic Historical artefacts associated with 250, 325, 335 and 340-350 Princes Highway

Moderate`

Discussion of cultural heritage management is presented in Section 10 which addresses the requirements of developing and implementing a mitigation strategy for protecting any identified or currently obscured archaeological sites that may be affected by any future development of the activity area. The background information indicates that previously disturbed and small (n<10/pm²) scatters of Aboriginal stone artefacts are the most probable cultural remains within the activity area. Whilst these sites will have originally existed as small discrete clusters, they are now widely distributed across the landscape due to historic land use practices (eg. repeated ploughing). Sites such as these provide very little scientific information and require minimal management. However, areas deemed as having archaeological potential (Figure 13) are considered to possibly contain higher densities of cultural material that may reflect slightly increased utilisation.

III

There are several areas of legislated cultural heritage sensitivity within the activity area. These areas include land within 50m of registered sites and land within 200m of the Cardinia and Gum Scrub Creeks (Figure 13 & 14). If part or all of this culturally sensitive land is to be impacted by future ground disturbance, these areas must be further investigated to clarify the risk to heritage values. The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 requires that a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) is produced if culturally sensitive land is to be subject to a high impact activity. High impact activities encompass most of those associated with the development of the precinct. It is probable that any subsequent CHMP will be a complex (sub-surface) assessment. If a significant archaeological deposit is found, then recommendations would be made to avoid the site via changes in development design. Under condition of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, if a site is to be impacted by development, comprehensive salvage may be required. Salvage of archaeological sites is done using a controlled hand method, and includes extensive analysis post field work. The following recommendations are made based on the results of this desktop assessment (Section 10). Aboriginal and Historic Heritage Recommendation 1 All Aboriginal sites are protected under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and all Historic archaeological sites are protected under the Heritage Act 1995. Therefore, all sites must be treated according to requirements of the Acts, which requires consideration of preservation/avoidance of harm in the first instance. Aboriginal:

• There are fifteen recorded sites situated within the activity area (Figure 13). These sites comprise surface and sub-surface stone artefact scatters. The majority (73%) of these sites are concentrated along the eastern bank of the Cardinia Creek (south-west portion of the activity area);

• Approximately one third of the activity area has been subject to previous ground

surface survey (Smith 1991; Tulloch 2001; Kajewski & Matthews 2003; Murphy 2004(b)). These studies found that the highest density of sites occur near water sources such as the Cardinia and Gum Scrub Creeks;

• There are also a high number (27%) of small lithic sites away from current water sources;

Historic:

• One previously recorded historic site comprising a farm complex is situated within the activity area (H 7921-0028) (Figure 13);

• There are five heritage overlay sites within the activity area (Figure 13) CSHO 102,

103, 104, 105 and 130;

IV

• CSHO 102 is a farm complex (c1888) situated at 250 Princes Highway, Officer, it

represents a rare housing type for the Officer area;

• CSHO 103 is a farm complex known as Firwood Park, former Hedgevale which is also registered on the Heritage Victoria Inventory (H 7921-0028) (see above);

• CSHO 104 is an industrial pottery site (c1900-1920) situated at 365 Princes

Highway, Officer and represents the development of brick-making in the Officer area;

• CSHO 105 is also an industrial pottery site (c1900-2009) situated at 340-350 Princes Highway, Officer. This site is associated to HO 104;

• CSHO 130 is a house site dated to the 1980s. While this site does not have any heritage restrictions it is protected by the Cardinia Shire Planning Scheme;

These historic and heritage overlay sites are protected by Heritage Victoria and Cardinia Shire Council Planning Scheme which places controls on the types of uses/construction allowed at these sites. Recommendation 2 At the time of report preparation, no concept development plans regarding the Officer Precinct Structure Plan have been made available. Provided that all high impact activities outlined are outside culturally sensitive areas (i.e. 50m from a previously recorded site, 200m from a named waterway) (Figure 13 & 14), there would be no trigger for a mandatory CHMP. Future activity areas must exclude all culturally sensitive landforms not to trigger a mandatory CHMP. The requirements for CHMPs are discussed in Section 9.3. To comply with obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, if any significant ground disturbance works as described under the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (which includes the installation of utilities (Regulation 43(xxiii)), construction of infrastructure (Regulation 44) and the subdivision of land into three or more residential lots or two or more lots in an industrial zone (Regulation 46)) are to take place within a sensitive area (i.e. 50m from a registered site or within 200m of a waterway) (Figure 13 & 14), a CHMP is required for the entire activity area prior to any development works taking place. These areas are considered sensitive for Aboriginal cultural heritage under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Regulation 22 & 23; Figure 14). These areas however are not considered sensitive if they have been subject to significant previous ground disturbance as defined by the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007. Given the significant amount (25%) of culturally sensitive landforms within the activity area, it is highly probable that a CHMP will be required to develop the Officer Precinct.

V

Recommendation 3 It is recommended that the proponent consider undertaking a voluntary CHMP to manage the risk associated with potential harm to Aboriginal cultural material. A voluntary CHMP will address appropriate management of existing and/or potential cultural heritage values and negate the possibility of any delays associated with Cultural Heritage Permits (CHP). A CHP can take over 40 days to finalise and are not required if a CHMP is in place. A Cultural Heritage Management Plan must be undertaken by a suitably qualified heritage advisor/archaeologist. A CHMP must be undertaken as early as possible in the development of the precinct plan. This will ensure that heritage values of significance can be appropriately managed via preservation in open space or other mitigation measures. An approved management plan will provide certainty for future stakeholders/users of the area and will avoid lengthy construction delays or the need for monitoring during initial ground disturbance works. Advantages of undertaking a CHMP:

• Mitigates the risk associated with potentially harming Aboriginal cultural material; • Will address the management of existing and potential cultural heritage and negate

any lengthy delays associated with applying for a Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP);

• Unlike a Cultural Heritage Permit, a management plan is valid for the entire activity area;

• An approved management plan will avoid lengthy construction delays, the need for

monitoring during initial works and provide future stakeholders/users of the area with certainty;

• Having an approved CHMP for the area will give certainty and confidence for future purchasers of the land;

Recommendation 4 It is recommended that a historic archaeological assessment is undertaken for the OPSP to comply with obligations under the Heritage Act 1995. This assessment is done most conveniently at the same time as a CHMP due to overlap in background research and field survey. The historic archaeological assessment is lodged as a separate report to Heritage Victoria (HV) and must be undertaken by a qualified historic-archaeologist.

VI

CONTENTS PAGE NO 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Aims 4 1.2 Consultation 4 1.3 The Proposed Development 5 1.4 The Activity Area 5 2 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND 5

2.1 Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environment 6 2.2 Geology and Landform 6 2.3 Flora and Fauna 8 2.4 Climate 8 2.5 European Impact on the Activity Area 9

3 ABORIGINAL BACKGROUND 12

3.1 Ethnohistory 12 3.2 Resources Available to Aboriginal People 15

3.3 Previously Recorded Aboriginal Sites/Places 17 3.4 Previous Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Investigations 19 3.5 Aboriginal Site Prediction Model for the Activity Area and Implications for this Investigation 23 4 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 24 4.1 Previously Recorded Historic Sites 33 4.2 Previous Historic Cultural Heritage Investigations 34 4.3 Historic Site Prediction Model for the Activity Area and Implications for this Investigation 35 5 BRIEF FIELD RECONNASIANCE 35 6 INSPECTION RESULTS 40 6.1 Discussion – Aboriginal Cultural Heritage 40 6.2 Discussion – Historic Cultural Heritage 41 7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY/POTENTIAL WITHIN THE ACTIVITY AREA 41 8 SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE 44 9 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS 44 9.1 Aboriginal Heritage Legislation 44 9.2 Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 45 9.3 Cultural Heritage Management Plans 45

VII

CONTENTS CONT’D PAGE NO 9.4 Historic Archaeological Sites 47 10 MANAGEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE AND RECOMMENDATIONS 50 10.1 Recommendations 50 REFERENCES 54 TABLES (In Text) Table 1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites within the Activity Area 18 Table 2 Historic Sites/Places within the Activity Area 33 Table 3 Areas of Archaeological Sensitivity/Potential within Activity Area 42 FIGURES (In Text) Figure 1 Activity Area Location 2 Figure 2 2006 Aerial Photograph of the Activity Area 3 Figure 3 Geology of the Activity Area 7 Figure 4 1750 Ecological Vegetation Classes in the Activity Area 9 Figure 5 1962 Aerial Photograph of the Activity Area 11 Figure 6 East Kulin Language Areas and Clans 13 Figure 7 Early Cattle Runs of the Port Phillip District 26 Figure 8 Parish Pakenham Plan Run 1052 n. d. 28 Figure 9 Panty Gurn Gurn, Pakenham Parish (Foot 1854, PR 36) 29 Figure 10 Berwick Parish Plan Roll 25 n.d. 30 Figure 11 Berwick B317 (6) n.d. 31 Figure 12 Pakenham P5 (5) n.d. 32 Figure 13 Areas of Heritage Potential 43 Figure 14 AAV Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitive Areas Map 7921 46 PLATES (In Text) Plate 1 East View of Southern End of Activity Area 37 Plate 2 West View of Southern End of Activity Area 37 Plate 3 West View of Grassed Paddock from Stephens Rd 37 Plate 4 Southern View of Cardinia Creek 38 Plate 5 North View of Floodplain Adjacent Cardinia Creek 38 Plate 6 South View of 236 Rix Road 38 Plate 7 South View of Cardinia Creek 39 Plate 8 North-West View of Floodplains Adjacent Cardinia Creek 39 Plate 9 HO 104 James Hicks Pottery 39 Plate 10 H 7921-0028 Firwood Park, former Hedgevale 40

VIII

CONTENTS CONT’D PAGE NO APPENDICES Appendix 1 Glossary 59 Appendix 2 Conservation Principles of the Burra Charter 67 Appendix 3 Advice on Cultural Heritage Management Plans 71 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The consultant would like to thank the following people for their assistance during the assessment: Bindi Thomas - Aboriginal Affairs Victoria Jeremy Smith & Brandi Bugh - Heritage Victoria James Aldred – Cardinia Shire Council Berwick-Pakenham Historical Society ABBREVIATIONS AAV Aboriginal Affairs Victoria BLC Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation BWF Boon Wurrung Foundation Ltd CHMP Cultural Heritage Management Plan CHP Cultural Heritage Permit DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment HV Heritage Victoria H Heritage Inventory LCC Land Conservation Council LV Land Victoria NT National Trust (VIC) OPSP Officer Precinct Structure Plan RAP Registered Aboriginal Party RNE Register of the National Estate VAHR Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register * Throughout this report several technical terms are used that may not be familiar to some readers. An extensive glossary has been included as Appendix 1 and should be referenced for an explanation of terms. **It should be noted that archaeological reports relating to Aboriginal and historic archaeological sites/places and the recommendations contained therein, may be independently reviewed by the Heritage Services Branch AAV, the relevant Aboriginal community, and Heritage Victoria, DSE. Although the findings of a consultant’s report will be taken into consideration, recommendations by a consultant for actions in relation to the management of a site should not be taken to imply automatic approval of those actions by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, Heritage Victoria or the relevant Aboriginal community. © Copyright – This report is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd Project Number 8901207.000.

Officer Precinct Structure Plan – Desktop Cultural Heritage Assessment

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, archaeologists & heritage advisors 1

1 INTRODUCTION This report outlines the results of a desktop investigation of the Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage values of the Officer Precinct Structure Plan (OPSP) and has been commissioned by the Cardinia Shire Council. The Officer Precinct is located within the Cardinia Shire, approximately 52km south east of Melbourne (Figure 1 – Activity Area Location). The Officer Precinct is part of the Cardinia Urban Growth Area. The Cardinia Urban Growth Area is divided into four residential precincts: Beaconsfield, Officer, Cardinia Road and Pakenham, and three employment precincts: Officer Employment, Cardinia Road Employment and Pakenham Employment. The Officer Precinct Structure Plan is part of a development contributions plan which will gauge the necessary requirements for the provision of key social and engineering infrastructure within the Officer Precinct. This desktop cultural heritage assessment is prepared for discussion purposes and reviews the Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage of the area and the potential impact the proposed activity may have on known and potential cultural heritage values. The significance of Aboriginal and historic items, sites and places that comprise the cultural heritage record varies considerably, and can be measured primarily upon their historic, scientific, social, educational, economic and aesthetic values. However, the integrity and significance of cultural heritage items, sites and/or places can be jeopardised by natural (e.g. erosion) and human (e.g. development) activities. In the case of human activities, a range of State Legislation exists to assure preservation of elements and features of cultural heritage (Section 9). This preliminary report fulfils a range of social and legislative obligations relating to potential cultural heritage sites and places within the activity area. However, it does not constitute a Cultural Heritage Management Plan under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. This investigation has been undertaken in accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, Heritage Act 1995, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting upon Archaeological Surveys in Victoria (AAV 2002), Heritage Victoria Guidelines for Conducting Historical Archaeological Surveys (DPCD 2008), the conservation principles of The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS 1999) and best current cultural heritage practise as defined by the Australian Association for Consulting Archaeologists Inc.



1.1 Project Aims The aims of this desktop cultural heritage assessment comprise the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 desktop assessment guidelines summarised as:

• Investigation of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register and Heritage Victoria to provide a desktop review of registered and potential Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage values relating to the activity area;

• Brief field inspection of the activity area to define and refine areas of cultural

heritage sensitivity and re-assess, where possible, previously recorded Aboriginal or historic cultural heritage sites;

• Identification and determination of the geographic region of the activity area;

• A review of reports and published works relating to the activity area region,

including historical and ethno-historical accounts of Aboriginal occupation of the region;

• A review of the landforms/geomorphology of the activity area;

• A review of land-use history of the activity area;

This assessment also includes:

• A description of the cultural heritage values of the activity area, based on collated

existing data; • An objective assessment of the potential impacts of any activity on these and

regional cultural heritage values; • An appraisal of any implications for the activity arising from relevant State and

Commonwealth legislation or policy; • A description of any opportunities to avoid or mitigate these potential impacts

through design or management; • An assessment of the likely resultant level of impacts if these mitigation measures

are adopted; • The production of a report using the findings in accordance with the guidelines of

the Heritage Services Branch, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV) and Heritage Victoria (HV).

1.2 Consultation Apart from consultation with current landowners and the Berwick-Pakenham Historical Society, no consultation with any relevant heritage stakeholder has been undertaken as part of this desktop cultural heritage assessment. However, broad consultation should form part of any future heritage assessment of the activity area. As no Registered



Aboriginal Party (RAP) had been appointed for the activity area at the time of report finalisation, no consultation with any Aboriginal group was undertaken as part of this cultural heritage assessment. In areas where no RAP has been appointed, AAV are responsible for administering the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. The Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (BLC) and the Boon Wurrung Foundation Ltd (BWF) both have RAP applications pending that include the activity area. If successful, one of these groups will be the primary indigenous consultation group. Part of the RAPs responsibility is to evaluate any cultural heritage management plans (CHMP). The site registers at AAV, HV, National Trust VIC (NT) and the Register of the National Estate (Australian Heritage Database) were consulted for the presence of previously recorded Aboriginal or historic cultural heritage sites within the activity area. The Cardinia Shire Council Planning Scheme and the Berwick-Pakenham Historical Society was also investigated for any information regarding previously undocumented sites and those included within Heritage Overlay. Archival plans and aerial photographs held at Land Victoria and the State Library were also reviewed. 1.3 The Proposed Development The Officer Precinct Structure Plan is part of a planning program aimed at improving the infrastructure and urban design of selected areas within Officer. Although no concept plans have been made available at this time, the proposed precinct master plan is likely to include the subdivision of land, construction of infrastructure and utilities, open space and the development of residential areas. These activities are likely to impact all ground surfaces to at least 2m depth. Potential impact to archaeological sites by future development may be either direct or indirect. Direct impact is where sites are located within the construction zone. Indirect impact is where construction activity is adjacent. The effects of construction may be active over the longer term, and may result in increasing sediment accumulation or erosion over a surface archaeological site. Construction can also adversely impact the root zones of living trees some of which may possess cultural scarring. 1.4 The Activity Area The activity area is situated in Officer and is approximately 1065 hectares in size (Figure 1). The activity area is bound by Brown Road in the north and the Gum Scrub Creek in the east. The Pakenham Bypass constitutes the southern boundary of the activity area and the Cardinia Creek is situated within the western boundary. The activity area is comprised of residential properties, private businesses and pastoral paddocks. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND The importance of understanding the past and present environment is two-fold. Firstly, it is the pre-European settlement environment that was the evolving context for Aboriginal land use in the region. Secondly, to understand the changes in the environment since European settlement is to bring an understanding of what Aboriginal archaeological sites may have survived, and where on the landscape they may be located. The following information briefly describes the pre-Contact environment of the activity area as this indicates the potential nature of resources available to pre-Contact Aboriginal groups. This



information, combined with research presented in Section 3, is used to generate an Aboriginal site prediction model specific to the activity area. 2.1 Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environment The Pleistocene and early Holocene environment within the activity area was one of gradual and continuous change. Aboriginal people are known to have occupied south-eastern Australia during the late Pleistocene (c. 40,000 to 10,000 years B.P.) from archaeological evidence found at Keilor (Coutts 1978) and Hunter Island (Bowdler 1984). During the Pleistocene, sea levels were in general much lower than present. In the late Pleistocene the sea was low enough for a land bridge (the Bassian Plain) to exist across what is now Bass Strait between Victoria and Tasmania (Mulvaney & Kamminga 1999: 118). Approximately 18,000 years B.P., sea levels began to rise slowly and it was not until approximately 10,000 years B.P. that Western Port became inundated by the sea (Marsden & Mallet 1975: 114-116). This resulted in the loss of large areas of territory for the Aboriginal population and the severing of connections between Tasmania and the mainland. During this time many archaeological sites were inundated. About 5,000 to 6,000 years B.P. the sea reached a maximum of 1.5 to 2m higher than at present, during which time Phillip Island was formed. The archaeological implications of these periods are that they provided different sets of resources for the human populations inhabiting the area. The effect of these climatic changes would have significant impact for the activity area in terms of exploitation by Aboriginals throughout the past 30, 000 years. In a study of pollens from forest areas in south-eastern Australia (Dodson et al 1992), a general picture of climatic change in the region of the activity area has been formulated. Briefly these changes are: 20,000 - 15,000 years Dry, cold and windy with reduced vegetation and water sources; 15,000 - 12,000 years Drier still but slightly warmer; 12,000 - 8,000 years Becoming wet and mild; 8,000 - 5,000 years Wetter and warmer than at present; 5,000 - present Cooler and drier. The past climate indicates that due to the more moderate conditions, the last 12,000 years may have been more conducive to exploitation of the Officer region by Aboriginal people than the earlier period between 12,000-20,000 years, which also correlates to the formation of current landforms (e.g. Koo Wee Rup Swamp, Cardinia Creek and flood plain). 2.2 Geology and Landform The dominant current topography of the activity area is an alluvial plain formed by Cardinia Creek (Figure 3). To the north of the activity area are undulating hills associated with the foothills of the Dandenong Ranges. Prior to European settlement the generally low-lying activity area was covered with Ti Tree, gums and grassland. Cardinia Creek originates from the hills immediately north of Berwick and flows into Western Port Bay. The underlying soil of the activity area is comprised of sedimentary deposits formed during the Pleistocene. These sediments comprise high-level river terraces, coastal terraces, flood plain deposits and abandoned swamps (Rosengren & Williams 1979). Plains within stream



valleys were formed during the emergence of the sea floor during the Pliocene and early Pleistocene periods. The surface soil of the activity area is comprised of Quaternary alluvium consisting predominantly of stream alluvium, sand, silt clay, gravel, and within creek valleys cobbles, coarse sands and gravel. These relatively recent sediments have spread over the flood plains as coalescing fans. The Bunyip River and Cardinia Creek flowed across these alluvial plains to drain into and form the Koo-Wee-Rup Swamp which was approximately 40, 000 ha in size. Sediments within the Koo-Wee-Rup Plains consist of sandy, silty clay and clayey sands. It is highly likely that pre-Contact Aboriginal groups would have camped and utilised resources near the Koo-Wee-Rup Swamp and on the Koo-Wee-Rup Plains resulting in some sites being situated away from current water sources (Rhodes & Bell 2004:11, 15, 67). The hills rising in the west of the activity area may comprise Tertiary Eocene to Oligocene Older Volcanic extrusive tholeiitic and minor alkaline basalts along with Silurian to Devonian undifferentiated marine mudstone and sandstone (Figure 3).

Legend: Sm Mirrindindi Supergroup; Qa1 Unnamed Alluvium; Nxx Baxter Sandstone; H Unnamed hornfels; G241 Lysterfield Granodiorite; Qm1 Unnamed Swamp & Lake deposit; Qd2 Unnamed Dune Deposits; -Po Older Volcanics; G239 Tynong Granite; Figure 3 Geology of the Activity Area (DSE Website – Interactive Map)

Approximatelocation of activity area



2.3 Flora and Fauna Since European settlement extensive clearing of native vegetation has occurred throughout the activity area and the Berwick – Pakenham region. There are no sections of the activity area that contain significant amounts of pre-European contact native vegetation, however, the hills to the north may retain some very old trees. Early plans of the region describe the hills to the north as ‘moderately well grassed’ with ‘swampy’ land in the southern section of Bowman’s pre-emptive right (Figure 10). To the south of the activity area early plans describe the plains to the east of Cardinia Creek as ‘open forest land’, ‘wooded with Gums and Oaks’ and the flat with ‘abundance of grass’. The plains and low-lying areas would have comprised dense Ti-tree scrub (Melaleuca sp.), Messmate gum on elevated areas and along major watercourses, Manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) and Swamp gum (Eucalyptus ovata) (Smith 1991: 10). The creek banks in this region once supported a variety of riparian and swamp species; rushes and sedges including tangled lignum (Muehlenbeckia cunninhamii) and common reed (Phragmites australis) in the water and on flood plains (McDougall 1987). Many of these wetland species still exist within Cardinia Creek. The activity area would have contained a large number and wide variety of faunal species associated with Ti-tree scrub and riverine ecosystems prior to European settlement. With the demise of native habitat, the number and range of species that once existed have been greatly reduced. Arboreal and land mammal species, which would have been commonplace throughout the activity area are possum, horseshoe bat, tiger quoll, native rats, wallaby, kangaroo, bandicoots and echidna. Stands of Ti-tree are also the prime habitat for numerous small birds that are protected from larger prey by this thick vegetation. Within wetlands and associated waterways would have existed black swans, ducks, ibis, quail, fish and crustaceans (LCC 1991: 111). Detailed lists of plants and animal species available within the Western Port and Port Phillip areas can be obtained from Gaughwin (1981), Sullivan (1981), Presland (1994) and Gott (1983). Prior to settlement the activity area comprised swampy woodlands, damp heathy woodlands, grassy forest and riparian scrub/swampy riparian woodland complex (Figure 4). The activity area has a moderate-high strategic economic value and therefore a moderate number of archaeological sites can be expected. Areas of high strategic value are those which have several Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) within close proximity and access to sources of water, such as the Cardinia Creek. 2.4 Climate The climate of the activity area is characterised by cool wet winters and moderate summers with short dry periods. The average annual rainfall is in excess of 700mm. The average temperatures range from a winter minimum of 3°C to a summer maximum of 26°C (LCC 1991: 60). Much of the activity area is a level flood plain that is exposed to climatic extremes and prevailing winds. The banks and flood plain of Cardinia Creek would have been a desirable occupation area for both pre-Contact Aboriginal people and early European settlers during much of the year offering sheltered campsites.



Figure 4 1750 Ecological Vegetation Classes in the Activity Area

(DSE Website Interactive Map) 2.5 European Impact on the Activity Area Since settlement by Europeans of the Berwick – Pakenham region in the 1840-50s, dramatic changes have been made to the landscape in Officer. The dominant changes are associated with pastoral activities (such as the clearing of vegetation, repeated ploughing, construction of dams, minor drainage schemes), orchards, residential development, road and rail construction, and the installation of services. These changes are of particular relevance to the Cardinia Creek valley, an area that was targeted early in European settlement due to the presence of fertile alluvial soil. Whilst orchards were the dominant historic activity in the upper part of the activity area (north), the southern section appears to have been mainly used for grazing. This is primarily due to the low-lying nature of the land, which would have generally proved unsuitable for orchards. The fertile alluvial flats of Cardinia Creek were also heavily cropped during the early historic period. Tree clearance and land development for pastoral activities would have adversely impacted on any sites that may have existed in the area. As a result of these activities, cultural material (such as stone tools) may have been disturbed, re-deposited, or even destroyed. Any scarred tree sites that existed in the area prior to clearance have been destroyed. Only sections within the activity area that have not incurred significant soil disturbance could potentially contain any undisturbed archaeological deposits and these are now limited to below the plough zone (approx. 40-50cm). Cultural material, particularly stone tools can move several hundred metres from their original discard point via repeated ploughing (Gaynor 2004).

Plains Grassland/Plains Grassy Woodlands Mosaic

Damp Heathy Woodland

Riparian Scrubs or Swampy Riparian Woodland Complex

Approximate Location of Activity Area

Swampy Woodland

Grassy Forest



The overall impact by European activities on the activity area has been high, significantly reducing the potential for intact surface Aboriginal cultural heritage sites. An aerial photograph of the activity area, taken in 1962, demonstrates that the activity area has been subject to repeated ploughing. Large sections of native vegetation, except for the banks of the Cardinia Creek and some isolated trees, have been cleared and extensive areas are under orchard. Therefore, most of the native vegetation present within the activity area will comprise re-growth. Since this photograph was taken, construction commenced on the Pakenham Bypass which has involved the excavation of deposits and the mounding of earth along the southern boundary of the activity area along the VicRoads easement. Some of this earth includes artefact bearing deposits that have been deliberately placed in that location in consultation with the Aboriginal communities (BLCAC & VBELC). This work has demonstrated the archaeological sensitivity of the banks and levees of Cardinia Creek. In summary, the European activities that would have acted to degrade archaeological resources within the activity area are:

• Initial clearing • Repeated ploughing • Long term grazing • Drainage works • Erosion of sediments • Deposition of sediments • Construction of the Pakenham Bypass



Figure 5 1962 Aerial Photograph of the Activity Area (Melbourne - Geelong Project Run21: 223)


N

Location of Ti Tree Swamp on Early Plans



3 ABORIGINAL BACKGROUND The information used to establish pre-settlement Aboriginal spatial organisation is mostly based on observations made by Europeans during the initial period of contact and subsequent settlement of the activity area. Early historical accounts of Aboriginal land use within and surrounding the activity area are scant, with most descriptions provided by the Assistant Aboriginal Protector Thomas (Thomas Journals 1840-1843) and early European landowners of the area. Officer lies within lands considered by ethnographers as traditional Bunurong and also possibly Woiworung land (Figure 6). 3.1 Ethnohistory The Bunurong tribe belonged to the inter-marriage and language group known as the Kulin, which inhabited areas around Melbourne. The Kulin were a confederation of five language groups that shared mutual economic and social relationships. They shared religious beliefs, having common creation legends and dreamtime ancestors. These religious beliefs formed the basis for social organisation and management of land and resources. Kulin people were affiliated with either one of two religious groups named after dreamtime ancestors (Bunjil – Eaglehawk, Waa – crow). Affiliation was determined by birth and established marriage relationships (Debney 1999: 14). The territory of the Bunurong is thought to have extended north from the coast at Western Port Bay to the Dandenong Ranges (Thomas in Gaughwin & Sullivan 1984: 86). The northern boundary is thought to have been delineated by the source of streams in the Dandenong Ranges, while the western boundary is thought to have been the Werribee River, and the eastern boundary was the Nicholson River (Gaughwin & Sullivan 1984: 87). Early Aboriginal population numbers made by observers are, at best, estimates. An 1839 census of the Bunurong by Thomas suggested that at the time of colonisation, this tribe comprised approximately 500 persons or ‘six square miles per person’ (Thomas ML 9: 47). Other descriptions of Bunurong territory (G. A. Robinson, W. Thomas, A. Massola) suggest that the territory:

‘extended along the coast from Werribee River on the west, to Cape Liptrap on the east, in an area taking in Williamstown (Koort-Boork-Boork), St Kilda (Euro-yoroke), the eastern environs of Port Phillip (Nerm) and all of Westernport (Warn-mer-in). Inland it reached to the Dandenong Ranges (Cor-han-warabul), Miboo, Warragul, Neerim and the Upper Latrobe’ (Massola 1959: 180).

The Woiworung clan who may have had reciprocal land use rights in the activity area were the Baluk-willam. The Baluk-willam clan occupied territory extending from the “ranges and swamps south of Yering on the upper Yarra, extending south-east to Koo-wee-rup Swamp and headwaters of Latrobe River, south-west to adjoin Bunurong clans about Cranbourne and Dandenong” (Barwick 1984: 120; Clark 1990: 386). The clan was patrilineal and belonged to the Waa moiety system. Clan leaders were known as “ngurungaeta” and the recognised leader of the Baluk-willam at the time of contact was Morundulk (ca 1773-1840) – his son Bolete (1819-1845) was a member of the Native Police (Barwick 1984: 120; Clark 1990: 386).



Figure 6 East Kulin Language Areas and Clans (from Clark 1990: 356) There is little ethnographic information of the lifestyles of the Baluk-willam clan at the time of European settlement. The few instances and recollections cited by early residents make no reference to clans or clan estates, movements or names. However, information cited within local histories can be assumed to be that of Baluk-willam clan members. Exchange of goods and intermarriage between the Woiworung and the Bunurong groups is known to have occurred (Sullivan 1981: 36). Kulin people often met for interclan gatherings, such as that recorded in 1844 when groups of Woiworung people were camped on the site of the future MCG, and a group of Bunurong were camped on the site of the future Government House (Presland 1994: 47). The Bunurong held meetings every three months and corroborees were held at full and new moons (Thomas ML 21: 97). Notices of planned gatherings were distributed to neighbours via message sticks, and during these inter-tribal gatherings marriages were arranged, disputes settled and goods traded. Greenstone from the Mt William quarries in the Woiworung territory was transported or traded into the Bunurong territory (McBryde 1984). In the early days of European settlement numerous Aboriginal people were known to reside in the district, and were considered to belong to the Bunurong tribe. They are cited as camping by the edge of dense vegetation and focused much of their activities along the major watercourses, such as Cardinia and Toomuc Creeks. The women collected



fresh water mussels from within creeks, small animals, and plant foods. Men speared fish, hunted kangaroo, possum, snake and emu, and children played around camps or in shallow sections of creeks (Beaumont et al 1979: 34). Recorded Aboriginal activity appears to focus on a large waterhole situated at the Cardinia Creek (northern end of Akoonah Park) where they speared fish and would use these to barter for other food from local settlers such as Robert Henry. Fish were both plentiful and larger than the milk dish in which they were carted by the Aboriginals (Beaumont et al 1979: 13). The Aboriginal name for this deep water hole was Ghin Ghin Bean, which was adopted for the extensive pastoral run to the south. There are references to Aboriginal people visiting homesteads to seek tobacco, or to investigate curious objects such as a music box. Canoe trees were known to exist along Cardinia Creek and by the Grasmere Swamp, where stone axes were also collected. On properties located south-west of the activity area and owned at one stage by Mr Bailleau and Mr Jones, numerous artefacts and midden sites were located, indicating places where local Aboriginal apparently cooked possums and fresh water mussels (Beaumont et al 1979: 34). One early resident, Mrs Fritzlaff is known to have had cordial relationships with local Aboriginals, to whom she gave sweet tea whenever they visited her property. Mrs Fritzlaff is also known to have been visited by Aboriginal women, some of who carried their children in wooden coolamons on their backs. Another local resident at that time, a Mrs Halleur, was often greeted with a large quantity of wood-grubs to be exchanged for jam. Local Aboriginal women were also cited as feeding ground-up woodworms to young European children (Beaumont et al 1979: 69). In the 1860s, a ‘corroboree’ ground was thought to have been located near a hill north of Princes Highway and east of Pakenham Road (Murphy 2004(a)). By the 1860s the traditional Aboriginal owners had been dispossessed of their land and food resources. The dense scrub which characterised the low-lying areas for much of its early settlement period would have hampered both European and Aboriginal movement in the area. There are no recorded Aboriginal pathways through this region; however, it can be assumed that at least some of the present day roads through the area may have originally followed narrow tracks established and maintained by local Aboriginal people. Most early settlers initially followed the tracks of explorers McMillan (1839) and Strzelecki (1840) that kept to the lower foothills (BPHS 1982: 30). It is possible that these explorers were also following pre-existing Aboriginal pathways. The meteorites that were once located between Officer and Pearcedale were believed by early European settlers to have been significant to local Aboriginals. It is reported that Aboriginals often camped at the location of these meteorites, on the property of “Ironbark”, and became very distressed by the meteorites removal (Smith 1991: 16). Many local place names and properties have supposedly originated from extracts of the local Aboriginal language. There is little possibility now to challenge the accuracy of these words. However, their existence verifies some level of verbal communication between early European landowners and local Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal word “Karr-Din-Yarr” (Cardinia) was interpreted to mean “Looking at the Rising Sun” (Beaumont et al 1979: 10). Another early run “Ghin Ghin Bean” (Gin Gin Bin) was said to have meant “Deep Dark Waters” and refers in particular to a deep water hole, one of the best known features of Cardinia Creek. In 1851 extensive fires swept through this area, forcing some local residents to shelter in this water hole within Cardinia Creek. The local Aboriginal people



who were still residing in the area during the time of these fires are recorded to have commented “that the bright fellow (the sun) had got the blight in his eye” (Beaumont et al 1979: 12). The deep dark water hole referred to so often in local histories has long since disappeared through the general deterioration of Cardinia Creek and its margins. Members of the Kulin were known to both bury their dead, as well as place them in tree hollows that were often burnt. Thus, based on this scant information burial sites although a rarity within the region, may still exist in undisturbed and elevated sandy locations. Currently there are very few locations within Bunurong land where Aboriginal burials are known to exist and these are within sand dunes, particularly fore-dunes. Aboriginal population numbers decreased rapidly after white settlement in the Western Port District due to dispossession of land and associated resources, and the spread of diseases brought into the area by European settlers. Relocation during the mid 1800s has also lead to the loss of any specific traditional information about the activity area. 3.2 Resources Available to Aboriginal People The resources available within the activity area for Aboriginal subsistence in the past would have been rich. The activity area and surrounding region contain an array of productive ecological zones such as: riverine, mountainous, lacustrine and terrestrial that would have been attractive for hunter-gatherers. It would be expected then, that areas associated with water bodies and drainage systems would be the focus of Aboriginal exploitation within and near the activity area. Within each of the above mentioned ecological zones, there would have been variations in staple species diversity and abundance, and this would have in turn influenced site location (Walsh 1987). The activity area was part of an important resource area for pre-Contact Aboriginal occupation, being on the margins of the Ti-Tree that fringed the former Koo-Wee-Rup Swamp and banks of Cardinia Creek. The activity area would have been comprised of thick Ti-Tree and gum scrub away from the creek. A large swamp (Ti Tree) has persisted in Officer despite broader draining schemes. These vegetation regimes were resource rich for pre-Contact Aboriginal people. Assistant Aboriginal Protector Thomas and early settlers in the Western Port region have recorded the seasonal movements of the Bunurong through their territory. Thomas noted that Aboriginal people would congregate around swamps to spear eels (Gaughwin 1981: 75). Eels were noted by Thomas as being an important food source and allowed people to stay at one camp spot for extended periods (Gaughwin & Sullivan 1984: 89-90). Lyrebirds, wombats, wallabies and other animals were hunted in forests during summer (Snoek 1987: 7). Early settlers and explorers throughout the Western Port area noted bark huts at campsites, and these were always found on the banks of rivers and creeks (Sullivan 1981: 33). Aboriginal people were observed to spend no more than 3 to 10 days at these camps while the resources within a 10 kilometre radius were exploited (Sullivan 1981: 37). Hunting was mainly done by men, with plant foods and small animals largely collected by women and children. Collected foodstuffs included liquid amber from the black wattle tree, tuberous roots, as well as the hearts of fern trees (Snoek 1987: 8). A large variety of plants were not only valued for their potential food resources but also in the manufacture of implements and for their medicinal uses (Snoek 1987: 8-9).



It is beyond the scope of this study to reconstruct the resource structure at a local scale, however, some of the food resources which may have been utilised by Aboriginal people in the Officer area are: wetland root crops (such as Typa, Triglochin), dry land root crops (such as Microseris scaigera), fresh water fish and crustaceans, waterfowl and land mammals (such as possums, kangaroos, wallabies, koalas, emu, echidnas). The silver Banksia, first referred to as honeysuckle by early European settlers, was “full of sweet liquid like honey, which was sucked by the natives: (Smith 1882 in McDougall 1987: 17). Most resources had several uses. For example austral bracken is known to have been used for medicinal purposes, with the juice of the stem applied to relieve insect bites, and for food. Some stone resources used by Aboriginal people in the past would have been available within and surrounding the activity area. Basalt, often used for grindstones and axes, was obtainable from surface outcrops at Berwick and possibly Cranbourne (Thomas 1967: 55). Most of these larger deposits have now been quarried for road metal. Quartz, like basalt, is readily available within the surrounding region (Queenscliff & Warragul 1:250,000 Geological Series Map sheet). Quartz pebbles are located within most creeks and drainage lines, and quartzite is exposed throughout hills. Siltstone and mudstone, two other materials occasionally used for the manufacture of stone artefacts, readily occur within the foothills to the north of the activity area. Granite, a stone type sometimes utilised for axes and grindstones is also found throughout the region. Neither silcrete nor chert occurs naturally within the activity area region (Kennedy 2008). This highly utilised stone material occurs 10 – 50km to the south and southwest of the activity area along the coast and on the Mornington Peninsula (Gaughwin 1981; McConnell 1981: 159; Kennedy 2008: Figure 6.28:95, Appendix 2). It is also considered potentially available within the Bunyip River valley (Murphy 2002). Swamp gum (Eucalyptus ovata) and Manna Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) were common along watercourses and within flood plain areas. Remnant stands of these trees are still found along Cardinia Creek. Because of their relatively smooth bark and large size, they were commonly used for the manufacture of bark implements by Aboriginal people (Edwards 1972: 31). To a lesser extent, remnant stands of messmate and peppermint gums that are still found within Pakenham hills would also have been utilised for the manufacture of wooden implements. Apart from the manufacture of wooden implements and access to food resources, the bark from these trees would also have been removed for other non-utilitarian purposes such as for ceremonial and social activities. As the majority of old growth gums have been removed from the activity area, there is low potential for Aboriginal scarred trees within the activity area. For pre-Contact Aboriginal people, an access route along Cardinia Creek via Koo-Wee-Rup Swamp to Westernport would have been relatively feasible and has been suggested by Smith (1989). The number and density of sites previously recorded along Cardinia Creek suggest that this creek may have been a focus for occupation. It is likely that distribution of elevated and dry land would have dictated routes of movement, along with areas opened up by pre-Contact burning regimes. Routes of movement are likely to have altered depending on season and conditions.



3.3 Previously Recorded Aboriginal Sites/Places A search of the Aboriginal Affairs Site Registry has revealed that a high number of previously recorded Aboriginal archaeological sites have been recorded along Cardinia Creek and to the east around Officer and Pakenham. There are fifteen previously recorded sites situated within the activity area and fifty-six within 2km of its boundaries. The sites situated within the activity area comprise low density surface and sub-surface stone artefact scatters. The primary raw materials used in the manufacture of tools are silcrete, quartz and quartzite. One historic Aboriginal place is recorded to the south of the activity area (Ghin Ghin Bean Station). The most common landform for recorded sites is adjacent to the Cardinia Creek as well as present and former watercourses. Sites within the activity area are presented in Table 1. Reference to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) indicates that the majority of the activity area has been subject to previous cultural heritage assessment. Both cultural heritage survey and good ground surface visibility are major factors allowing for the identification of Aboriginal sites. The significance of the sites attributed by the original reader reflects archaeological knowledge at the time. Smith was the first to undertake survey work in the area, and therefore sites are assessed as high due to representativeness. Today, few of the sites originally recorded by Smith would be assessed as being of high scientific significance. Some sites, such as those recorded in the 1980s and 1990s may now have lower significance assessment based on present day data.



Table 1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites within the Activity Area

VAHR Site No, Name & Site Card Reference

Site Type

Site Location & Contents Significance

Assessment*

7921-0188 Cardinia Creek 1 (Smith 1991)

Stone Artefact Scatter

Site located 5m south of the end of Rix Road on slight rise South-west portion of activity area Two isolated stone artefacts Site dimensions: 3 x 1m

High



Site located at southern end of rise overlooking Cardinia Creek. South-west portion of activity area Sub-surface deposits disturbed by rabbit burrows Site dimensions: 10 x 5m

High



Site located 100m north of Thomas St on east bank of old creek line South-west portion of activity area Silcrete, quartz and quartzite artefacts Site dimensions: 10 x 2m

High



Site located 150m south of 7922-0209, eroding from creek bank South-west portion of activity area Isolated quartz artefact

High

7921-0244 Cardinia CK Bypass 1


Located on the Cardinia Creek terrace South – west section of the activity area Isolated silcrete core

NP

7921-0585 CHS 1


Site located west of Thomas St South-west portion of activity area One isolated chert artefact Artefact dimensions: 18 x 11 x 4mm

NP

7921-0588 CHS4


Site located west of Thomas St above a waterhole South-west portion of activity area Two quartz flakes

NP

7921-0589 CHS 5


Site located west of Thomas St South-west portion of activity area Four silcrete flakes, one silcrete core, one core unknown material

NP

7921-0590 CHS 6


Site located east of Officer South Road Isolated silcrete flake South-east portion of activity area Site dimensions: 1 x 1m

NP

7921-0603 MYA-LONG IA1 (Vines et al 2008)


Site located on Gum Scrub Creek South-east portion of activity area Isolated silcrete flake

Low



VAHR Site No, Name & Site Card Reference

Site Type

Site Location & Contents Significance

Assessment*

7921-0630 MYA-LONG IA2


Site located at 75 Officer South Road identified on a small rise through sub-surface transect South-east portion of activity area One quartz and one quartzite flake

Low

7921-0637 MYA-LONG IA9 (Vines et al 2008)


Site located at 75 Officer South Road identified on a small rise South-east portion of activity area One silcrete flake and one chert flake

Low

7921-0738 PB1 N4 (Howell Meurs & Long 2006)


Site located south of Rix Road South-west portion of activity area Isolated quartz artefact

NP



Site located south of Rix Road South-west portion of activity area Dense sub-surface artefact scatter comprising 46 stone artefacts of silcrete, quartz and basalt

NP



Site located south of Rix Road South-west portion of activity area Isolated silcrete artefact

NP

* As attributed by original recorder; NP – not provided

3.4 Previous Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Investigations This section presents relevant regional and localised archaeological investigations to provide a detailed context of the existing archaeological values of the region so that any sites found during subsequent cultural heritage assessments can be appropriately understood and placed within a local and regional context. There have been two regional Aboriginal archaeological studies which have included the activity area within their broader boundaries (Smith 1991; Rhodes & Bell 2004). In addition, there are a number of localised reports which have investigated areas nearby (Murphy 2003; Murphy & Rymer 2007(a), 2007(b), 2008; Murphy, Thomson & Rymer 2007). Approximately one third of the activity area has been previously surveyed for cultural heritage investigations (Smith 1991; Tulloch 2001; Kajewski & Matthews 2003; Murphy 2004(b)). Relevant aspects of these investigations are presented below. Regional Investigations Smith (1989) & (1991) conducted a regional investigation of the Aboriginal archaeology of the Berwick to Bunyip Corridor; the activity area lies within this corridor. Sixty-two Aboriginal archaeological sites were recorded with four surface scatters of stone artefacts being identified within the activity area. These sites comprise 32 surface scatters of stone



artefacts, 15 scarred tree sites and 15 isolated artefact occurrences. The highest site and artefact densities were found to occur on sandy ridges in the Cranbourne area, particularly those associated with water. This finding has also been previously noted by Presland (1983) and Gaughwin (1981). The dominant stone material types identified in the surface scatters by Smith (1989) were chert and quartz. The majority of artefact types recorded at these sites were flaked pieces and flakes, with less than 2% of the recorded assemblage consisting of formalised tools (Smith 1991: 47). The activity area is included within Smith’s landscape unit Landscape Unit 2 (1989: 11-12, Figure 2). The site prediction model formulated for this landscape unit by Smith (1989: 60) is applicable to the activity area and concludes that:

• Artefact scatters and isolated artefacts are the most likely site type to occur in this unit;

• Sites are most likely to occur within 60m of creek lines and other water sources and most are likely to occur along the banks of permanent creek lines, such as Toomuc and Ararat Creeks;

• A high number and density of sites occurs along Cardinia Creek. Sites along Cardinia Creek will, in general, occur within 150m of the creek and the majority (91%) will occur within 50m;

• Scarred tree sites are not expected to occur more than 50m from creek lines;

• Artefact scatters in this unit will be dominated by quartz, chert or silcrete with the former site type being the most common.

More recently, the Urban Growth Corridor within the Shire of Cardinia has been reviewed for Aboriginal cultural heritage values (Rhodes & Bell 2004). This study has resulted in a significant refinement of previous Aboriginal site distribution models for this area. During this assessment Rhodes examined early soil mapping information (Holmes et al 1940 in Rhodes & Bell 2004), and results of recent subsurface excavations within the Urban Growth Corridor. Of relevance to the present investigation Rhodes (2004: iii) comments:

‘Recent archaeological evidence gained from sub-surface testing carried out on the Lakeside Estate at Pakenham, indicates that Aboriginal people may have camped along the changing water courses and wetlands on the Koo-Wee-Rup plain for at least the past 5,000 years. Because of the repeated cycles of flooding, sedimentation and migration of stream channels, Aboriginal archaeological sites have been found in locations over 1.5 km from existing water courses, and at depths of between 400-800mm below the surface’.

Rhodes devised a site prediction model that is based on soil types (2004: 69):

1) On deep alluvial sandy soils….Aboriginal archaeological sites are likely to be found on the surface, particularly within 500 metres of existing water courses, but may also occur at some depth. Buried archaeological sites may be found at any depth in alluvial sand and soil above the clay, but layers of stone artefacts have most commonly been found to occur at depths of between 400 – 800mm below the surface at a number of locations. There is less probability of Aboriginal cultural material occurring in the heavy clay layer below the sandy alluvium. 2) On heavy clay soils derived from weathering of Silurian rocks or erosion of soil on the hills landform, archaeological sites are more likely to be located close to the surface (within approximately 300mm or less). This encompasses much of the land within the study corridor, particularly in the hills landform.



3) There is no specific distance from major water courses at which sub-surface Aboriginal archaeological sites may be found. Archaeological sites on both landforms have been found at distances greater than 1.5 km from existing water courses. It is suggested that on the Koo-Wee-Rup plain, this site dispersal could be related to (a) migration of creek channels, (b) resulting changes in the environment of the plain (c) changes in Aboriginal use of the environmental resources and routes of movement over time and (d) natural processes of erosion and alluvial deposition on the floodplain. 4) Archaeological sites on all landforms are less likely to be found by ground survey and more likely to be found by sub-surface testing, even in shallow soils. This is partly because of the poor ground surface visibility that prevails over most of the study area. On sandy alluvial soils and particularly areas removed from the creek banks and on alluvial terraces, sub-surface testing will be required to the surface of the underlying clay. 5) Surface archaeological sites within the study area are likely to be heavily disturbed and not contain complex stone assemblages. This is partly because the sites have been collected in the past and partly because historical land – use since European settlement. 6) Deeply buried Aboriginal archaeological sites on the floodplain are likely to contain more complex and diverse stone assemblages and in situ features such as workshop floors and hearths. However, the survival of organic material on the sandy alluvial soils of the floodplain may vary, depending on soil acidity and past hydrological processes. 7) Human burials are more likely to be found on the sandy alluvial soils of the floodplain than on shallow Silurian soils. 8) Aboriginal archaeological sites on the hills landform in general are likely to be more highly disturbed than many sites on the floodplain. This is because the sites are located on an erosional land surface, in shallow soils and in an area which has been cleared for logging and agriculture in the past, even in areas where there is some forest.

In addition to the regional investigations there have been a number of relevant small scale studies in the immediate region. Small scale investigations Tulloch (2001) conducted a cultural heritage assessment of the Pakenham Bypass for VicRoads, incorporating the southern most portion of the activity area. A ground surface survey over five days identified six Aboriginal sites despite generally very poor ground visibility. Of these, four sites were located within the Bypass alignment. Ten artefacts were distributed over an area of 10m2 on exposed sandy soil. Murphy (1992) first registered this site. It was assessed as having moderate scientific significance (p28). It was recommended that the site be retained, otherwise a permit to disturb would be required (Recommendation 3, p39). Testing and monitoring within 100m of Cardinia Creek was also recommended. Kajewski and Matthews (2003) carried out an archaeological survey of 325 Princes Highway, Officer, situated in the northern portion of the activity area. The overall effectiveness of the survey was thought to be constrained by thick grass coverage with only 5% of the ground surface being visible. No Aboriginal sites were identified. It was recommended that any ground disturbance to take place within the northern section of the property be monitored and subjected to sub-surface testing prior to development.



A cultural heritage assessment of the ‘Officer Farm’, Officer, immediately east of the activity area was undertaken by Murphy (2003). Although no new Aboriginal sites were identified several sections of the study area were assessed as containing potential for Aboriginal archaeological material. These areas of potential were limited to the edge of a low-lying plain to 100m onto a gentle hill slope and 50m from the banks of the Gum Scrub Creek. Based on the results of the investigation it was recommended that if the development was to impact on any areas of potential that further investigation via sub-surface testing be undertaken. Murphy (2004) completed a cultural heritage assessment for 62 Rix Road, Officer, situated in the middle portion of the activity area. The landform of the study area was described as being low-lying floodplain. No new Aboriginal sites were identified during the site survey. The study area was assessed as having low potential for Aboriginal archaeological material. It was recommended that a geotechnical assessment of the soil profile be undertaken to refine areas that may contain buried archaeological deposits, if no sensitive landforms were identified from this assessment then no sub-surface testing of the study area would be required. Murphy and Rymer 2007(a) undertook a cultural heritage assessment of the proposed Officer South Rising Main, located immediately south of the activity area. Although 17 previously recorded Aboriginal sites have been recorded within 200m of the study area, no new Aboriginal or historic sites were identified as part of this study. Based on background research and local site distribution models, Murphy & Rymer assessed the activity area as having low to high archaeological potential. It was recommended that a program of sub-surface testing and monitoring be undertaken prior to the commencement of works. As a result of the recommendations made by Murphy & Rymer 2007(a) a program of sub-surface testing as well as a Cultural Heritage Management Plan was undertaken for the Officer South, Rising Main by Murphy & Rymer 2007(b) & Murphy & Rymer 2008. Mechanical sub-surface testing located two new Aboriginal sites (VAHR 7921-0866 & 0867) and one previously recorded site (VAHR 7921-0739). Sites VAHR 7921-0866 & 0867 were assessed as having low scientific significance and site VAHR 7921-0739 was assessed as having moderate significance due to its medium density and the range of stone artefact types present within the assemblage. A program of sub-surface testing of the Pakenham Bypass, Cardinia Creek, immediately south of the activity area was undertaken by Murphy, Thomson and Rymer 2007. This study investigated the sub-surface deposits of two previously recorded Aboriginal sites (VAHR 7921-0737 & 0737) which were originally identified by previous testing undertaken by (Howell-Meurs & Long 2006). The sites were located within 150m of the Cardinia Creek bank and escarpment. As part of this investigation the archaeological nature of three previously recorded sites (VAHR 7921-0737, 0739 & 0245) was clarified and an additional new site (VAHR 7921-0838) was recorded within the creek valley. VAHR sites 7921-0739, 0245 and 0737 were identified as having moderate scientific significance and VAHR 7921-0838 as having low scientific significance. As these sites would be impacted by the construction of the bypass, Murphy et al 2007 recommended that mitigation of these sites should involve monitoring by community representatives, the restriction of vehicle traffic and that artefact bearing deposits should be relocated into open space as close to their original position as possible.



3.5 Aboriginal Site Prediction Model for the Activity Area and Implications for this Investigation

The implications of the environmental, ethnographic and archaeological background for the present investigation are: • There are twenty-three previously recorded Aboriginal cultural heritage sites within the

activity area, these sites comprise surface and sub-surface stone artefact scatters; • Approximately one third of the activity area has been subject to previous ground

surface survey which has focused on the banks of the Cardinia Creek, associated tributaries and floodplains;

• There are forty-eight previously recorded Aboriginal cultural heritage sites within two

kilometres of the activity area, comprising three scarred trees, one earth feature and forty-four stone artefact scatters. All were identified during cultural heritage investigations of specific areas;

• The activity area contains several areas of Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity as

specified under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Figure 13 & 15) these are, land situated 50m from previously recorded Aboriginal sites and land within 200m of the Cardinia and Gum Scrub Creeks;

• The location of recorded Aboriginal sites in the Berwick – Pakenham region reflects

changing hydrological and ecological conditions over the past 25,000 years; • Cardinia Creek banks, swamp margins, terraces and spurs have been identified as

landforms with high archaeological potential (Howell-Meurs & Long 2006: 4). Large pre-contact water holes are likely to have been locations for more frequent occupation;

• At Cardinia Creek there is increased likelihood of disturbance on the highly active

floodplain caused by frequent water erosion while the escarpments will have a reduced frequency of flooding since they are above the 100-year event level;

• The ground surface of the activity area has incurred significant modification from past

land use. This can reduce the spatial and temporal integrity of sites and therefore also their scientific significance. European practices such as land clearing and grazing have generally disturbed the activity area;

• The most likely site types to be found within the activity area are low to moderate

density stone artefact scatters. Low density stone artefact scatters are typically dominated by flakes and waste flakes manufactured from silcrete, quartz and quartzite;

• Unlikely site types to be located within the activity area are burials, stone quarries and

ceremonial sites; • The site prediction model is speculative and based on general predictive statements for

Aboriginal archaeological sites found in adjacent areas;



Given the close proximity of previously recorded sites, it is therefore likely that the activity area may hold the same type and number of archaeological material. That is, a small number of highly dispersed stone artefacts within the topsoil layer existing beyond 200m of Cardinia and Gum Scrub Creeks. These are likely to be concentrated around tributaries and former watercourses, with more significant and deeply buried intact sites within 200m of the creek line. Highly disturbed cultural material may also be found in the unstable active floodplain within 50m of Cardinia Creek. 4 HISTORIC BACKGROUND The following section provides a brief historical background and context. It provides information on the potential for historic sites and their predicted location, as well as local and regional information regarding previously recorded sites. This information is then synthesised in Section 4.3, to generate a historic site prediction model specific to the activity area. Although the Portuguese possessed maps of Western Port Bay by 1493, the first recorded visit by Europeans to the Western Port area was by George Bass in 1798, followed by Lieutenant James Grant in 1801. Later that same year Murray carried out a detailed investigation of Western Port, during which time contact was made with local Aboriginal people (Sullivan 1981: 13). From 1798 to 1826 sealers were the most common visitors, establishing various coastal bases such as Phillip Island (Gunson 1974: 16). The men involved in the exploitation of seals travelled from Tasmania, often bringing Aboriginal women and men with them. Seals were then a common sight along the coast and at saltwater inlets. However, such was the wholesale destruction of their colonies that by 1832 sealing was no longer profitable. Tasmanian ships also visited Western Port during this period to obtain wattle bark (Acacia melanoxylon, for the use of tanning) from the black wattle that flourished on the mainland (Edgecombe 1989: 14). Additional survey by Flinders (1802) further refined the strategic knowledge of Port Phillip Bay and Bass Strait. However, it was not until a survey undertaken by Grimes (1803) that finally established the economic potential of the region. Until 1826 the destructive and disruptive effects on Western Port Bay by Europeans had been limited to the coastal fringe. Later in that year a military settlement was established at Red Point (Corinella) to forestall possible claims and colonisation by the French. From this short-lived settlement (2 years) several survey trips were made to the upper regions of the Bay. William Hovell was the first European to actually explore this region, making two trips, one in an attempt to cross the Koo-Wee-Rup Swamp from Sawtells Creek (Tooradin), and another searching for a route north, which would avoid the swamp (Gunson 1974: 18). Although he found the scrub impassable, he reported:

‘a vast range of country invaluable for every purpose of grazing and agriculture – watered by numerous fine streams and rivers, and presenting an easy inland intercourse extending from Port Phillip and Westernport to the settled districts’ (Butler & Associates 1996: 4).

During the first few years of European occupation (1840-50s), surveyors prepared maps of the region showing the landscape of the area prior to any significant modification by Europeans. An 1847 map prepared by surveyor Urquhart displayed a varied landscape that gradually changed from the Ti-tree swamp and gum scrub of the ‘Great Swamp’ to



the thickly wooded area near Pakenham. In this area ‘Mimosa, Acacia, Gum and Banksia’ flourished and there were stretches of ‘good agricultural soil’. An abundance of grass was noted in the Nar Nar Goon and Pakenham South areas. To the north of Pakenham ‘good pastures’ and ‘granite rises’ were indicated while, to the west, the country around Beaconsfield was described as ‘Ranges moderately well-grassed’ (Butler & Associates 1996: 6). From 1837 to 1841 grazing licenses covering many acres of grassland were taken up in the Port Phillip district at a cost of ten pounds per year. One of the first squatters in the district was Captain Robert Gardiner around 1837 who occupied land on the future town of Berwick. The location of the activity area would have originally been situated within the Panty Gurn Gurn, Gin Gin Bean and Mt. Pleasant pastoral runs (Figure 7). There is no evidence to suggest that any early or significant structures associated with these runs exist within the activity area. The Berwick – Pakenham area first served as a transport corridor from Melbourne to Gippsland and the existing Princes Highway is almost identical with the original survey (Hicks 1988: 21). The section of the Princes Highway between Melbourne and Bunyip was undertaken from 1858, and follows the earliest tracks for much of the route particularly between Berwick and Pakenham. Once rough tracks leading from one pastoral run to another had been upgraded to useable roads, settlement of the region increased. However, it was not until a number of consecutive land acts and the completion of the rail line in 1877, that the region became popular with small landowners. The principal routes through the area during the 1840s were primitive tracks connecting the various station homesteads. The main track went from Dandenong (Narre Narre Worran) to Garem Gam, Greenmount (with a branch to Gin Gin Bean, etc.), Tooradin and the Inlets (Gunson 1974: 54). The current alignment of the Princes Highway follows one of these early main routes. Most of the blocks in the district were considered suitable for mixed farming (dairying and potatoes). To the north of the Princes Highway Orchards have dominated historic land use practices. Only the ‘swamp fringe’ soils such as Ghin Ghin Bean and IYU runs were regarded as unsuitable for cropping and grazing beef and dairy cattle was advocated. Dr Jamieson of the IYU run was one of the first to establish the area as a centre for horse breeding, including racehorses, Indian remounts and draught. It was also during the 1840s that the first itinerant timber cutters moved into the district, targeting the forest to supply Melbourne’s need for building timber. Government licences enabled splitters to cut down any suitable trees on Crown Land. Due to the lack of made tracks in the area during this period, the timber industry was largely inoperable during the winter months when teams of bullocks were unable to cart whole logs and split palings because of mud (Symonds 1989: 16). By 1860 most of the large runs had been divided with well-forested areas reserved for the timber logging industry (BPHS 1982: 6). In 1852 H. B. Foot conducted the first survey of the district in order to sell allotments, which occurred in 1854. Until this time little development would have taken place on these runs. After the land sales, when secure ownership was obtained, landowners would have begun major constructions (such as more substantial houses, sheds, dairies) and developed land for pastoral activities. Prior to this time shepherds, living in outlying bark



huts, tended cattle. Early pastoral activity included a wide variety of crops (potatoes, wheat) that were carted by bullocks to Melbourne markets.

Figure 7 Early Cattle Runs of the Port Phillip District (Gunson 1974 in BPHS

1982: 4) A succession of various Land Acts during the 1860s opened up remaining land for sale, and reduced the size of allotments to ensure all settlers had an opportunity to purchase land. Under the 1869 Land Act, land was held under license for three years before it could be purchased and required selectors to live on the allotment and undertake various improvements before purchase. As a consequence, by 1870 all the large pastoral runs ceased to exist. Due to the flood prone nature of the activity area, the land was generally unsuitable for cropping and was used for grazing dairy and beef cattle. In general, areas of Berwick and Pakenham that remain open pasture have incurred a low level of development since initial European settlement. There are several historical structures situated within the activity area which represent links to the historical themes/development of the Officer area. Firwood park, former Hedgevale (H 7921-0025 & HO 103) was originally a prosperous dairy farming property purchased by H.J Rix in the early 1890s. The property is situated to the north of Princes Highway and was developed into an orchard covering 50 acres around 1911. From the 1920s the property was divided into three farms covering 370 acres. The homestead, still in visibly good condition today (Plate 10), comprises a polychrome brick villa with a cast iron verandah. The house is set among mature exotic trees which line the driveway used to approach it. The brickwork of the house has

Approximate location of Activity Area



distinctive diaper patterns around openings which is also visible on its two chimneys. Weatherboard additions once visible towards the back are now gone. Brick houses were uncommon within the district during this period therefore the house probably has a close association to the early Officer brickworks. This site is significant to the Officer region because it is a polychrome brick Italianate styled farmhouse, rare in a region which was dominated by timber construction (Butler & Associates 1996:348-350). Primrose Park (HO 102) is a farm complex situated at 250 Princes Highway, Officer. The site is currently on the Cardinia Shire Heritage Overlay and comprises a large brick hipped roof and verandahed villa set among ornamental trees. This 140 acre farm complex was originally owned by Edward Hanley (Berwick Shire President 1882-83) from 1879. The present villa and associated trees are dated to 1888-89. The farm complex is an example of a substantial and stylised farm house for the area and should be considered significant to the region (Butler & Associates 1996:346-7). James Hicks Pty Ltd Pottery (HO 104), situated at 365 Princes Highway, is an industrial complex (C1900-1920) associated with the development of the districts brick, pipe and pottery industries. The complex comprises corrugated iron clad clay sheds, two brick strapped chimneys and an early converted tunnel kiln. A weatherboard gabled office (c1920-30) is situated to the east of the complex and has a Marseilles pattern terra-cotta tiled roof. The pottery complex is important to the Officer area as it represents one of two early terra-cotta manufacturing complexes and still retains some of its original elements (Butler & Associates 1996:351-3) (Plate 9). Berwick Pottery (HO 105) situated at 340-350 Princes Highway is a complex comprising corrugated-iron gabled clay sheds (new and old), a tall square-section strapped brick chimney and an early brick tunnel kiln. This complex is associated with the James Hicks pottery situated to the north of the Princes Highway. A descendant of James Hicks leased the complex to Berwick Potteries in the 1960s who still operate at the site today. The Berwick Pottery is a significant early pottery site associated with industrial brick-making, pipe-making and pottery production from the post World War I era (Butler & Associates 1996:354-7). The brief history of the activity area presented in this report indicates that there are several significant historical structures present within the activity area which are currently under heritage overlay. These structures relate to historical themes for the Officer area such as the development of early small-scale farming, dairying, and orcharding as well as industrial activities such as brick-making. While these sites/structures represent historical themes from the 1890s onwards it is unlikely that the activity area will contain any potentially significant historic site associated with the earliest settlement of the area (c1800-1850). Most historic archaeological sites within the activity area will relate to subdivision and small scale ownership that practised mixed farming, which for nearly half a decade was based on orchards. Typical archaeological sites from this period (1870s-1950) will be foundations of dwellings and other structures, and historic artefact scatters.



Figure 8 Parish Pakenham Plan Run 1052 n. d.



Figure 9 Panty Gurn Gurn, Pakenham Parish (Foot 1854, PR 36)



Figure 10 Berwick Parish Plan Roll 25 n. d.



Figure 11 Berwick B317 (6) n. d.



Figure 12 Pakenham P5 (5) n. d.



4.1 Previously Recorded Historic Sites As part of this desktop cultural heritage assessment the Victorian Heritage Register and Inventory, National Trust Register, Australian Heritage Database (Register of the National Estate) and Cardinia Shire Council Planning Schemes Heritage Overlays were investigated for registered/listed historic sites/places. There is one previously recorded Victorian Heritage Register Inventory site (H 7921-0028) and five Cardinia Shire Heritage Overlays (HO 102-5, 130) situated within the activity area (DSE Planning Schemes Online). Currently there is only one site listed on the register of the National Trust. The following table presents sites situated within the activity area. Table 2 Historic Sites/Places within the Activity Area

Site Name, Registration &

Reference

Site Type & Description

Location Significance*

Hedgevale Farm Complex H 7921-0028 Firwood Park, Former Hedgevale HO 103 (Butler & Associates 1996)

Locally made brick dwelling with weatherboard additions to the rear. Mature pines line original driveway, property originally large orchard

325 Princes Hwy, Officer. Middle portion of activity area

High regional Moderate archaeological

Primrose Park HO 102

Farm Complex, house, trees. Thought to date c1888 and associated with Edward Hanley

250 Princes Highway, Officer. South of Princes Highway middle portion of activity area

Regional

James Hicks Pty Ltd. Pottery HO 104

Pottery consisting of corrugated-iron clad gabled clay sheds, two brick strapped chimneys and an early converted kiln.

365 Princes Highway Officer. North of Princes Highway middle portion of activity area

NP

Berwick Pottery HO 105

Pottery, hedge, palms

340-350 Princes Highway, Officer. South of Princes Highway middle portion of activity area

NP

Grant House HO 130 B 7163

Complex of buildings and landscape designed by architect Guilford Bell, completed in 1986

26 Whiteside Road, Officer. North-west portion of activity area

NP

* As attributed by original recorder; HO – Heritage Overlay; NP – not provided



4.2 Previous Historic Cultural Heritage Investigations This section presents relevant regional and localised archaeological investigations to provide a detailed context of the existing archaeological values of the region. Two regional investigations have been undertaken which include the activity area within their broader boundaries (Hicks 1991 & Butler 1996). Additionally, several small scale investigations have been carried out within the activity area (Costello et al 1998; Tulloch 2001; Kajweski & Matthews 2003; Murphy 2004). Approximately 10% of the activity area has been subject to ground surface survey for historic archaeological sites. Regional Investigations: The previous regional historic investigations by Hicks (1991) and Butler (1996) have characterised the nature, distribution and integrity of extant historic structures and vegetation. Although not concerned with archaeological sites, these studies are valuable for their role as site prediction resources. Both studies note that the earliest occupation of the area revolved around pastoral and agricultural activities, that later included dairying and orchards. This suggests that early pastoral development such as post and rail fencing, homestead and associated features (i.e., sheds, wells, rubbish dumps, gardens, dairy, stock yards, sheep dip) may still remain within areas of undeveloped land. Both studies recommend further investigation of major historic properties and numerous locations within the region. Small Scale Investigations: The studies by Costello et al (1998) and Tulloch (2001) are a desktop and survey assessment of the proposed Pakenham Freeway from Beaconsfield to Nar Nar Goon, immediately south of the activity area. The desktop assessment (Costello et al 1998) did not formulate an historic archaeological site prediction model, but rather adopted the comments made by Butler during a study of the area’s significant buildings that ‘frequent and ferocious bushfires have swept through the corridor destroying many isolated homesteads, and this has resulted in a reduced amount of significant building stock in the corridor’. An examination of local historic publications indicates that whilst a number of bushfires have swept through the region, in most cases the homesteads were saved (Gunson 1974). The survey of the proposed Freeway conducted by Tulloch (2001) located one historic site within the corridor. This site comprises exotic plantings (D7921-0045) and has been assessed as being of moderate scientific significance. Despite this significance, no mitigation measures were recommended. During these investigations no historic archaeological site prediction models were generated for the region. No area of historic archaeological potential was identified for the activity area. Kajewski and Matthews (2003) carried out an archaeological survey of 325 Princes Highway, Officer, situated in the northern portion of the activity area. The overall effectiveness of the survey was thought to be constrained by thick grass coverage with only 5% of the ground surface being visible. No historic sites were identified and no recommendations regarding historical cultural heritage were made. Murphy (2004) completed a cultural heritage assessment for 62 Rix Road, Officer, situated in the middle portion of the activity area. The landform of the study area was described as being low-lying floodplain. No historic sites were identified during the site survey and no



areas were assessed as having potential for historical archaeological material. No recommendations regarding historical cultural heritage were made. 4.3 Historic Site Prediction Model for the Activity Area and Implications for this Investigation

• There is one historic and five heritage overlay sites situated within the activity area; • Ground surface survey of the activity area has been limited to land east of Bayview

Road (Kajweski & Matthews 2003), and 62 Rix Road (Murphy 2004) covering approximately 10% of the activity area;

• Most common sites will be original subdivision allotments and will comprise evidence of residential and mixed farming activities;

• There is no historical evidence to suggest that any early (c1800-1850) potentially

significant historic cultural heritage feature has been constructed within the activity area;

• There are four historic structures (HO 102-5) situated within the activity area (c1888-1930) which are significant to the Officer/Cardinia Shire as they represent a link to the historical themes/development of the area;

• Possible early structures/features could be associated with cultivation areas,

crossing points of the Cardinia Creek, Sugar Loaf Hill and generally in close (<50m) proximity to the creek;

• Any early sites contained within the activity area will probably be in a highly

disturbed state and would be assessed as being of lower scientific and cultural significance;

5 BRIEF FIELD RECONNASIANCE A brief field reconnaissance was conducted on the 21st of May 2009 by Project Archaeologist Stacey Kennedy (Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd). The activity area is comprised of residential properties, private businesses and pastoral paddocks and covers an area of approximately 1065ha. Inspection of the area was conducted on foot and by vehicle. The aims of this review were to: refine areas of cultural sensitivity, gain a preliminary understanding of any areas which may be significantly disturbed, and attempt to inspect previously recorded sites. The twenty-three previously recorded Aboriginal sites (VAHR 7921-1889, 209-10, 224, 244, 585, 587-590, 603, 630, 634, 636-7, 737-40, 787-8, 838) were not able to be re-located due to low ground surface visibility and constraints on access to some private properties. The previously recorded historical site (H 7921-0028) situated at 325 Princes Highway was inspected as part of this report. The homestead is visible from the highway and is in good condition (Plate 10). While the site retains many of the aspects recorded in the original site card the weatherboard additions and outbuildings have now been removed and a modern



residence and garden has been constructed behind the house. This house site is significant as it represents a unique polychrome brick Italianate styled farmhouse, rare in the region, and is associated with the beginnings of small scale farming, dairying and orcharding of the Officer area (Section 4). Several heritage overlay sites (HO 102, 4, 5) are situated in the activity area on the Princes Highway. Primose Park (HO 102) comprises a c1888 farm complex situated at 250 Princes Highway the site was not able to be relocated as part of this study and therefore was not re-inspected. James Hicks Pottery (HO 104) is situated at 365 Princes Highway and comprises an industrial brickworks complex established c1900-1920. This site was recorded in Butler’s (1996) heritage study of the Cardinia Shire. At the time of recording this site was still in use and comprised iron-clad clay sheds, two brick strapped chimneys and an early tunnel kiln. A garbled office was also situated on the eastern side of the complex. Re-inspection of this site has established that the complex is no longer in use and the majority of the site no longer exists. The remaining aspects of the site now comprise, one clay shed and brick chimney with the office situated to the east of the complex. The site is in moderate to poor condition (Plate 9). Berwick Pottery (HO 105), situated at 340-350 Princes Highway, comprises an industrial brickworks complex dated to c1900-1931. The site is associated with the James Hicks Pottery complex and is still in use today. The site consists of iron-garbled clay sheds, a strapped brick chimney and an early brick tunnel kiln. The site retains these features and is in moderate to fair condition. HO 130 is known as Grant house and is situated at 36 Whiteside Road, Officer. This house and garden site is dated to the late 1980s and is significant to the Officer area because of its architectural style. This site was not re-inspected as part of this project.



Plate 2 West view of grassed paddocks at the southern end of the activity area. 0% Ground surface visibility.

Plate 1 East view of grassed paddocks at the southern end of the activity area. (Pakenham Bypass on right) 0% Ground surface visibility.

Plate 3 West view of grassed paddocks taken from Stephens Road. 0% Ground surface visibility.



Plate 4 Southern view of the eastern bank of the Cardinia Creek 0% Ground surface visibility.

Plate 5 North view of the floodplain adjacent to Cardinia Creek. General location of sites VAHR 7921-209, 585, 587. 588). 0% Ground surface visibility.

Plate 6 South view of 236 Rix Road. 0% Ground surface visibility.



Plate 7 South view of Cardinia Creek (east bank) 0% Ground surface visibility.

Plate 8 North west view of floodplains and former creek drainage channel. General area of VAHR 7921-0188-89 0% Ground surface visibility.

Plate 9 North view of former James Hicks Pty Ltd Pottery (HO 104)



6 INSPECTION RESULTS The aims of this review were to: refine areas of cultural sensitivity, gain a preliminary understanding of those areas which may be significantly disturbed, and attempt to inspect previously recorded sites. As a result of the inspection several areas of cultural sensitivity have been recognised within the activity area (Figure 13). 6.1 Discussion – Aboriginal Cultural Heritage The brief field review established that areas considered as having archaeological potential are largely intact – especially adjacent to the Cardinia Creek. Elsewhere, such as locations of previously recorded sites, there is intermediate disturbance. Background information presented in Section 3 has shown that there is moderate to high archaeological sensitivity for sites within 50m of previously registered sites and within 200m of the Cardinia and Gum Scrub creeks. To clarify the archaeological values of areas of moderate and high sensitivity, and what impact development may have on these values, further investigation is required. Until further investigation is undertaken, the site prediction model formulated for the activity area (Section 3) should be considered appropriate but generalised. The background Aboriginal archaeological information presented in Section 3 indicates that the activity area has landforms of moderate to high archaeological potential comprising a 50m reserve around any previously registered Aboriginal site, land within 200m of the Cardinia and Gum Scrub Creeks and the Ti Tree Swamp. Previous studies have demonstrated that areas near the creeks have archaeological potential (Section 3.4). Areas of lowest potential are the ploughed land further than 200m of the creeks. The recorded sites in the region reflect the nature of pre-Contact Aboriginal occupation of the area and previous survey coverage. The lack of recorded sites in parts of the activity area does not reflect the absence of Aboriginal occupation of the area, rather it attests to

Plate 10 North view of former H 7921-0028 Firwood Park, former Hedgevale. Polychrome brick Italianate styled farm house.



the absence of comprehensive survey. Systematic survey along with good ground surface visibility conditions are major factors allowing for the identification of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites. However, some sites are only found in a sub-surface context, especially along Cardinia Creek. Parts of the activity area’s ground surface has been significantly disturbed in the past (e.g orchards) (Section 2.5), resulting in reduced Aboriginal cultural heritage values. However, with the presence of permanent and seasonal water sources, it is likely that low to moderate density stone artefact scatters will exist in the activity area, and will reflect transient use of the landscape by Aboriginal people prior to European settlement. Isolated stone artefacts are ubiquitous over the Victorian landscape, and there is no effective sampling strategy that could be used to locate individual stone artefacts within the activity area. Apart from potentially multi-component lithic sites there is very low potential for human burials and limited potential for any other site type to be present within the activity area (i.e rock structures; in situ features such as hearths). 6.2 Discussion – Historic Cultural Heritage Although the background information indicated that the activity area is adjacent to the historic Mt Pleasant, Panty Gurn Gurn and Ghin Ghin Bean pastoral runs, there is no evidence to suggest that any historic archaeological features relating to these runs have existed within the activity area (Butler & Associates 1996:11, 12). There are several historic structures situated within the activity area which are currently under Cardinia Shire Heritage Overlay (HO 102-5). These sites comprise farm complexes and industrial pottery sites dated to c1888-1930. The sites represent historical development and are associated with early farming and industrial practices of the Officer area. However, as only 10% of the activity area has been subject to ground surface survey, numerous minor or locally significant historic archaeological sites may exist. 7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY/POTENTIAL WITHIN THE ACTIVITY AREA Areas of archaeological sensitivity are those designated as containing potential for archaeological sites. These are usually areas that have poor ground surface visibility which obscures possible surface and/or sub-surface deposits. Archaeologically sensitive areas are also those that may not have been previously surveyed, but within which sites might occur. Decisions regarding archaeological sensitivity/potential are based on historic information, geomorphology and geology, vegetation, post-Contact disturbance and data from previous relevant research. The final aspect in assessing potential is based on the results of a ground surface or sub-surface inspection. Areas deemed archaeologically sensitive may be considered low, medium or highly sensitive. Table 4 presents areas identified as having archaeological potential within the activity area based on the results of this desktop cultural heritage assessment and brief site visit. Based on the cultural heritage background, and results of the survey, the study area has been assessed as having the following archaeological potential (Table 3, Figure 13). Areas



with high and medium potential sensitivity should be subject to limited subsurface testing to clarify archaeological values prior to development commencing. Aboriginal Sites: The activity area contains low to high potential for small (n<10s) to moderate (n<100s) density scatters of stone artefacts in both disturbed and relatively intact depositional contexts. Medium density stone artefact clusters are expected within 50m of previously registered Aboriginal sites and Gum Scrub Creek, while a high density of stone artefact clusters is expected within 200m of Cardinia Creek. On the western bank of the Cardinia Creek, the highly disturbed nature of the deposits and mounding associated with construction of the Pakenham Bypass has significantly reduced an possibly destroyed any Aboriginal cultural heritage scientific values. The highest risk to potentially scientifically significant archaeological material within the activity area is primarily associated with land within 50m of previously registered sites and Gum Scrub Creek, as well as landforms within 200m of the Creeks. The remainder of the study area has a low level of potential. Historic Sites: The background research and results of the ground surface survey indicate that there is one historic site (H 7921-0028) and several structures (HO 102-5) within the activity area which have historic cultural heritage values. These structures are related to the historical development (c 1888-1930) of the Officer area. There are state and local statutory regulations applicable to these sites. Table 3 Areas of Archaeological Sensitivity/Potential within the Activity Area

(Figure 13)

Heritage Type Potential Deposits Level of Potential

Aboriginal Small numbers of previously disturbed low-density (n<10/pm²) stone artefact scatters throughout the activity area Low to moderate density (10-100/pm²) stone artefact scatters within 50m of previously recorded sites, Gum Scrub Creek and Tea Tree Swamp. Low to moderate density (10-100/pm²) stone artefact scatters within 200m of current & previous water courses/drainage lines (Cardinia,Creek)

High Low – Moderate Moderate

Historic Historical artefacts associated with 250, 325, 335 and 340-350 Princes Highway

Moderate`



8 SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE As no sites were recorded as part of this desktop cultural heritage assessment, scientific and cultural significance assessment is not required. 9 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section, relating to the statutory requirements associated with archaeological sites, has been included to inform users of this report of the legal obligations regarding heritage sites. Any breach of this legislation is cause for prosecution. 9.1 Aboriginal Heritage Legislation The following is a summary of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 as described in the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 Regulatory Impact Statement. The Act commenced operation on 28 May, 2007.

In 2006 the Victorian Government passed the Cultural Heritage Act 2006, to provide more effective protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage and broaden Aboriginal community involvement in decision-making arrangements. The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006: • Replaces outdated State and Federal legislation governing the protection and

management of Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria; • Ensures that the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage is an integral part of

planning and land development processes; • Provides increased certainty for developers and land managers in relation to the types

of developments that require cultural heritage management plans; • Establishes an Aboriginal Heritage Council, comprised of traditional owners, to

provide a state wide voice for Aboriginal people in the management of cultural heritage. The council will register Aboriginal parties as cultural heritage decision makers for areas in Victoria, and advise the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in relation to the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage;

• Gives Registered Aboriginal Parties responsibility for protecting and maintaining

Aboriginal places and objects of cultural heritage significance within their areas, through providing cultural heritage management plans, advising on heritage permits, entering into heritage agreements and negotiating the repatriation of Aboriginal human remains;

• Provides dispute resolution and review mechanisms through mediation and the

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; • Provides a range of measures to improve compliance with, and enforcement of, the

legislation, including cultural heritage audits, stop orders, modernised offences and penalties, and increased responsibility and accountability for inspectors;



• Retains the power of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to make interim and ongoing protection declarations over significant Aboriginal places or objects;

• Broadens Aboriginal community involvement in heritage protection to include

traditional owners (The Allen Consulting Group 2007: 2-3).

Further information regarding the Act can be obtained from the AAV website at: http://www1.dvc.vic.gov.au/aav/ 9.2 Aboriginal Heritage Regulations Regulations have been developed to support the operation of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. They provide further information on aspects of the Act, clarifying roles and expected standards that are required under the Act to:

• Maximise certainty about when and how to prepare a cultural heritage management plan, thereby better protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage and reducing delays to development;

• Ensure that fair payment is made for the evaluation of a cultural heritage management

plan and that Government receives appropriate payment for assessing applications for permits and advice on the Register (The Allen Consulting Group 2007: 4).

The regulations also specify:

• The circumstances in which a cultural heritage management plan is required; • The standards for the preparation of a cultural heritage management plan and for a

map in a cultural heritage agreement; • Fees for evaluating a cultural heritage management plan; • Fees for an application for a cultural heritage permit; • Fees for an application to the Secretary for advice as to whether a record exists on the

Register in relation to a nominated area of land (The Allen Consulting Group 2007: 3).

Further information regarding the Regulations can be obtained from the AAV website at: http://www1.dvc.vic.gov.au/aav/ In summary, all Aboriginal cultural heritage is protected under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. 9.3 Cultural Heritage Management Plans Part 4, Division 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 states that certain activities will require a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) to be prepared. A CHMP is required for an activity if all or part of the activity area is deemed as culturally sensitive and that the activity is of high impact to the area. High impact activities are described in the Aboriginal



Heritage Regulations 2007 Part 2, Division 5 and include the installation of utilities (Regulation 43(xxiii)), construction of infrastructure, such as railways (Regulation 44(1d)), roads (Regulation 44(1e)), walking tracks (Regulation (1f)) and telecommunication lines (Regulation 44(1g)) as well as the subdivision of land into three or more residential lots or two or more lots in an industrial zone (Regulation 46). Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitive area maps are available from the Department for Victorian Communities website (www1.dvc.vic.gov.au/aav/heritage/Maps/). Those relevant to the activity area are presented in Figure 14. Figure 14 shows that there are culturally sensitive areas that would trigger a CHMP requirement. These areas occur within 50m of previously registered Aboriginal sites and 200m of the Cardinia and Gum Scrub Creeks. Any development that includes within its boundary culturally sensitive land will activate the trigger for a mandatory CHMP. This requirement is still activated even if no high impact activities are planned for the culturally sensitive area. Alternatively, the proponent may prepare a voluntary CHMP. A voluntary CHMP can avoid delays if any Cultural Heritage Permit’s (CHP’s) are required over the course of development works. CHP’s are required if an activity will harm, or is likely to harm, Aboriginal cultural heritage and can be applied for from the Department for Victorian Communities. This process can take in excess of 30 days.

Note: Green shaded areas indicate Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity Figure 14 AAV Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitive Areas Map 7921 (DVC website)




Under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Section 42), “the preparation of a CHMP for an area involves an assessment of the area to determine the nature of any Aboriginal cultural heritage present in the area, and a written report setting out the results of the assessment and recommendations for measures to be taken before, during and after an activity to manage and protect the Aboriginal cultural heritage identified in the assessment. The written report is the CHMP”. For the purposes of a CHMP there are three types of assessments described under the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007. These are a desktop cultural heritage assessment, a standard assessment and a complex assessment. However, both standard and complex assessments are required to include a desktop cultural heritage assessment. A desktop cultural heritage assessment “must include research into information relating to Aboriginal cultural heritage in or associated with the activity area, including a search of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register for information relating to the activity area; an identification and determination of the geographic region of which the activity area forms a part that is relevant to the Aboriginal cultural heritage that may be present in the activity area; a review of reports and published works about Aboriginal cultural heritage in the geographic region; a review of historical and ethno-historical accounts of Aboriginal occupation of the geographic region; a review of the landforms or geomorphology of the activity area; and a review of the history of the use of the activity area” (regulation 57). “A standard assessment is required if the results of a desktop assessment show that it is reasonably possible that Aboriginal cultural heritage is present in the activity area” (regulation 58) and “must include ground surface survey (as described in regulation 59(3) & (4)) of all or part of the activity area to detect the presence of Aboriginal cultural heritage in or associated with the activity area” (regulation 58). “A complex assessment is required if the desktop or standard assessment shows that Aboriginal cultural heritage is, or is likely to be, present in the activity area, and it is not possible to identify the extent, nature and significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in the activity area unless a complex assessment is carried out” (regulation 60). A complex assessment involves “the disturbance or excavation (as described in regulation 61) of all or part of all or part of the activity area to uncover or discover Aboriginal cultural heritage” (regulation 61) and must include the establishment of the stratigraphy and general sub-surface nature of the area being investigated by controlled excavation as described in regulation 61(7) before any other disturbance or excavation is carried out (regulation 61(4)). Additionally, “if the use of machinery in a disturbance or an excavation results in the finding of occupation deposits or features, the deposits or features must be uncovered and assessed by controlled excavation (regulation 61(6)). 9.4 Historic Archaeological Sites Non-Aboriginal archaeological sites in Victoria are protected by the Heritage Act 1995. The following is a summary of the latest statutory obligations regarding non-Aboriginal historic archaeological sites: • All historical archaeological sites in Victoria (not included on the Heritage Register)

are protected under Section 127 of the Heritage Act 1995. Under this section it is an offence to excavate, damage or disturb relics and sites whether they are included



on the Heritage Inventory or not, unless a consent has been issued under Section 129;

• Under Section 64 of the Heritage Act 1995 it is an offence to damage, disturb,

excavate or alter a place or object on the Heritage Register, unless a permit is granted under Section 67;

• Under Section 132 of the Heritage Act 1995 any person discovering or uncovering

an archaeological relic is required to report the discovery to the Executive Director of the Heritage Council;

• Schedule 5 of the Heritage (General) Regulations 2005 prescribes fees to

undertake specified activities with respect to archaeological relics. These are currently $225.00 for Consent to uncover or excavate a relic; $420.00 for Consent to damage or disturb less than 50% of a relic or site $635.00 for Consent to damage or disturb more than 50% of a relic or site. Fees for permits to carry out works etc. to a registered place or object are detailed in Schedule 3 of the Regulations. These fees range in scale from $100.00 to $7,160.00, depending on the nature of the works involved and the cost of the proposed works.

In addition, Heritage Victoria requires that funds be made available by developers to ensure the responsible management of all significant artefacts that are recovered during an excavation. As a condition on any consent or permit, there will be a requirement that a specified sum of money is submitted to Heritage Victoria prior to the commencement of works. The funds will be used to ensure the cataloguing and conservation of any significant artefacts that are recovered. Any unexpended funds will be returned to the client, minus a 15% levy that is used for the management of all excavation projects in Victoria. Written application to disturb such sites should be lodged as early as possible in the planning stages of any works program, and must be directed to: Mr Ray Tonkin The Director Heritage Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment Level 4/55 Collins Street MELBOURNE Victoria 3000 Ph: (03) 8644 8800 Enquires relating to the Heritage Act 1995, works, site management etc should be directed to: Jeremy Smith Senior Archaeologist Heritage Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment Level 4/55 Collins Street MELBOURNE Victoria 3000



Ph: (03) 8644 8800 General enquires relating to sites, the Heritage Inventory/Register, reports, permits or consents, including application procedures and fees should be directed to: Brandi Bugh Heritage Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment Level 4/55 Collins Street MELBOURNE Victoria 3000 Ph: (03) 8644 8800 Heritage Victoria has also recently requested that the following statements relating to sites listed on the Heritage Inventory be included within consultant’s reports. All archaeological sites in Victoria are protected by the Heritage Act 1995. All known archaeological sites are listed in the Heritage Inventory. Regardless of whether they are listed in the Inventory no one can knowingly excavate or disturb an archaeological site without the consent of the Executive Director. Prior to the Heritage Act 1995 sites were protected under the Archaeological and Aboriginal relics Preservation Act 1972. Thus since 1972 there has been protection in Victoria for archaeological sites. The protection was not about the preservation and conservation of all sites. Under the AARP there was provision for archaeological areas to be declared an archaeological area that was intended to protect and conserve an archaeological site (S15). Activities for the remainder of archaeological sites were controlled through the requirement to gain a permit (S22). With the advent of the Heritage Act 1995 archaeological sites continued to be protected in two ways. Sites, which were considered to be of significance to the State, were recommended to be placed on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR). The VHR exists to protect and conserve places and objects. All other archaeological sites are protected through the requirement to gain consent from the Executive Director to disturb, destroy, or excavate an archaeological site. Thus, the Victorian Heritage Register enables Heritage Victoria to preserve and conserve archaeological sites which are of significance to the State of Victoria while the Heritage Inventory enables Heritage Victoria to record and monitor sites which are not considered to be of State significance or where the significance is unknown. Heritage Victoria also registers sites under a 'D' listing, which accommodates sites of very low archaeological value though they may have local historic value. 'D' listed sites are typically those that have little structural or artefactual features such as earthen formations (i.e. dams, railway formations). Sites registered under this system do not require Consent prior to any proposed development, but apart from this are managed in the same way as Heritage Inventory sites. 'D' Listed sites therefore, may be subject to a variety of conditions prior to impact, such as detailed recorded, additional historic research and archaeological monitoring. The two levels of protection enable two different principles in issuing consents and permits to be followed. The guiding principal for places on the Register is to protect and conserve



as much of the fabric of the place and the relics/artefacts as is possible. While for places listed in the Heritage Inventory recording, excavating and monitoring are the usual methods of assessing and managing the heritage values of a site. Consultation with Heritage Victoria, Department of SE, should occur at least 4 months prior to lodgement of a permit application to disturb or destroy a historic archaeological site. In the event of a site or relic being uncovered or discovered during works, any works that would damage the relic object or place should cease and either the consulting archaeologist or Heritage Victoria be notified. 10 MANAGEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE AND RECOMMENDATIONS Cultural heritage management is a legal, ethical and scientific process that aims to reconcile the interests of various stakeholders including the land owner/developer, traditional owners (for Aboriginal cultural heritage), government agencies and relevant community groups. Appropriate cultural heritage management seeks to avoid any harm to cultural heritage places by a high impact activity. The most common type of harm is associated with developments that disturb or modify the ground surface, which are typically residential, industrial and infrastructure developments. Any activity that exposes or disturbs in any way the fabric or content of a place reduces its cultural and scientific significance. Places can be impacted if their context is reduced to a point where there are no other related reference features in the local landscape to provide context and therefore broader interpretation of a site. This is referred to as the level of cultural landscape integrity. Determining an appropriate management strategy for a cultural heritage place requires the establishment of its cultural and scientific significance. When a place can be demonstrated to be of sufficient cultural and/or scientific significance then the management aim in the first instance is to avoid harm to significant values. Best cultural heritage practice seeks to avoid harm to cultural heritage places by appropriate input into development design. Ideally, best management practice is to allocate open space/park/reserve over the site location to ensure long-term protection and eliminate the need for costly harm minimisation measures or site salvage works. If avoidance is not possible then, as a last resort, harm minimisation or carefully managed destruction may be appropriate. 10.1 Recommendations Aboriginal and Historic Heritage Recommendation 1 All Aboriginal sites are protected under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and all Historic archaeological sites are protected under the Heritage Act 1995. Therefore, all sites must be treated according to requirements of the Acts, which requires consideration of preservation/avoidance of harm in the first instance.



Aboriginal:

• There are fifteen recorded sites situated within the activity area (Figure 13). These sites comprise surface and sub-surface stone artefact scatters. The majority (73%) of these sites are concentrated along the eastern bank of the Cardinia Creek (south-west portion of the activity area);

• Approximately one third of the activity area has been subject to previous ground

surface survey (Smith 1991; Tulloch 2001; Kajewski & Matthews 2003; Murphy 2004(b)). These studies found that the highest density of sites occur near water sources such as the Cardinia and Gum Scrub Creeks;

• There are also a high number (27%) of small lithic sites away from current water sources;

Historic:

• One previously recorded historic site comprising a farm complex is situated within the activity area (H 7921-0028) (Figure 13);

• There are five heritage overlay sites within the activity area (Figure 13) CSHO 102,

103, 104, 105 and 130; • CSHO 102 is a farm complex (c1888) situated at 250 Princes Highway, Officer, it

represents a rare housing type for the Officer area;

• CSHO 103 is a farm complex known as Firwood Park, former Hedgevale which is also registered on the Heritage Victoria Inventory (H 7921-0028) (see above);

• CSHO 104 is an industrial pottery site (c1900-1920) situated at 365 Princes

Highway, Officer and represents the development of brick-making in the Officer area;

• CSHO 105 is also an industrial pottery site (c1900-2009) situated at 340-350 Princes Highway, Officer. This site is associated to HO 104;

• CSHO 130 is a house site dated to the 1980s. While this site does not have any heritage restrictions it is protected by the Cardinia Shire Planning Scheme;

These historic and heritage overlay sites are protected by Heritage Victoria and Cardinia Shire Council Planning Scheme which places controls on the types of uses/construction allowed at these sites. Recommendation 2 At the time of report preparation, no concept development plans regarding the Officer Precinct Structure Plan have been made available. Provided that all high impact activities outlined are outside culturally sensitive areas (i.e. 50m from a previously recorded site, 200m from a named waterway) (Figure 13 & 14), there would be no trigger for a



mandatory CHMP. Future activity areas must exclude all culturally sensitive landforms not to trigger a mandatory CHMP. The requirements for CHMPs are discussed in Section 9.3. To comply with obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, if any significant ground disturbance works as described under the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (which includes the installation of utilities (Regulation 43(xxiii)), construction of infrastructure (Regulation 44) and the subdivision of land into three or more residential lots or two or more lots in an industrial zone (Regulation 46)) are to take place within a sensitive area (i.e. 50m from a registered site or within 200m of a waterway) (Figure 13 & 14), a CHMP is required for the entire activity area prior to any development works taking place. These areas are considered sensitive for Aboriginal cultural heritage under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Regulation 22 & 23; Figure 14). These areas however are not considered sensitive if they have been subject to significant previous ground disturbance as defined by the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007. Given the significant amount (25%) of culturally sensitive landforms within the activity area, it is highly probable that a CHMP will be required to develop the Officer Precinct. Recommendation 3 It is recommended that the proponent consider undertaking a voluntary CHMP to manage the risk associated with potential harm to Aboriginal cultural material. A voluntary CHMP will address appropriate management of existing and/or potential cultural heritage values and negate the possibility of any delays associated with Cultural Heritage Permits (CHP). A CHP can take over 40 days to finalise and are not required if a CHMP is in place. A Cultural Heritage Management Plan must be undertaken by a suitably qualified heritage advisor/archaeologist. A CHMP must be undertaken as early as possible in the development of the precinct plan. This will ensure that heritage values of significance can be appropriately managed via preservation in open space or other mitigation measures. An approved management plan will provide certainty for future stakeholders/users of the area and will avoid lengthy construction delays or the need for monitoring during initial ground disturbance works. Advantages of undertaking a CHMP:

• Mitigates the risk associated with potentially harming Aboriginal cultural material; • Will address the management of existing and potential cultural heritage and negate

any lengthy delays associated with applying for a Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP);

• Unlike a Cultural Heritage Permit, a management plan is valid for the entire activity area;

• An approved management plan will avoid lengthy construction delays, the need for

monitoring during initial works and provide future stakeholders/users of the area with certainty;



• Having an approved CHMP for the area will give certainty and confidence for future purchasers of the land;

Recommendation 4 It is recommended that a historic archaeological assessment is undertaken for the OPSP to comply with obligations under the Heritage Act 1995. This assessment is done most conveniently at the same time as a CHMP due to overlap in background research and field survey. The historic archaeological assessment is lodged as a separate report to Heritage Victoria (HV) and must be undertaken by a qualified historic-archaeologist.



REFERENCES Aboriginal Affairs Victoria

2002 Guidelines for the Conducting and Reporting of Archaeological Surveys in Victoria.

Australia ICOMOS 1999 The Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter). Sydney, Australia ICOMOS.

Barwick, DE 1984 Mapping the Past: An Atlas of Victorian Clans. 1835 –1904 Part 1. Aboriginal History 8 (1-2): 101-131.

Beaumont, N, J James, F Curren & R Hughes

1979 Early Days of Berwick Surrounding Districts. Impress Printing, Dandenong.

Bowdler, S 1984 Hunter Hill, Hunter Island: Archaeological Investigations of a Prehistoric Tasmanian Site. Terra Australis 8. Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.

Berwick Pakenham Historical Society

1982 In the Wake of the Pack Tracks. Berwick-Pakenham Historical Society.

Butler, G & Associates

1996 Cardinia Shire Heritage Study. Cardinia Shire.

Clark, ID 1990 Aboriginal Languages and Clans. An Historical Atlas of Western and Central Victoria. Monash Publications in Geography No. 37.

Costello, C, O Nicolson & C Timewell

1998 Flora, Fauna, Archaeological and Heritage Survey, Pakenham Bypass, Victoria. A report to VicRoads.

Coutts, PJF 1978 The Keilor Archaeological Project. Records of the Victoria Archaeological Survey No. 8, Ministry for Conservation, Melbourne.

Debney, T 1999 Desktop Archaeological Assessment of Pipeline between Cardinia Reservoir and Pearcedale, Victoria. A report to GHD Pty Ltd.

Dodson, J, R Fullagar & L Head

1992 ‘Dynamic of Environment and People in the Forested Crescents of Temperate Australia’. In J Dodson (ed.), The Australia and the South-West Pacific, pp. 115-159. Longman Cheshire, Melbourne.



Department of Planning and Community Development

2008 Guidelines for Conducting Historical Archaeological Surveys. Heritage Council of Victoria.

Edwards, R 1972 Aboriginal Bark Canoes of the Murray Valley. Rigby, Adelaide. South Australian Museum.

Edgecombe, J 1989 Philip Island and Western Port. M Edgecombe, Sydney.

Gaughwin, D 1981 Sites of Archaeological Significance in the Western Port Catchment. Report to the Environmental Studies Division, Ministry for Conservation, Victoria.

Gaughwin, D & M Sullivan

1984 Aboriginal Boundaries and Movements in Western Port, Victoria. Aboriginal History 8 (1): 80-98.

Gaynor, P

2004 Three Seasons of Cultivating Stone Artefacts with Farming Implements in Northwest NSW. http://www.archeo.biz.

Gott, B 1983 Muirnong – Microseris scapigera. A Study of Staple Food of Victorian Aborigines. Australian Aboriginal Studies: 2-17.

Gunson, N 1974 The Good Country: Cranbourne Shire. Cheshire, Melbourne.

Hicks, P 1988 Berwick-Pakenham Corridor Historical Survey. A report to the Ministry for Planning and Environment.

1991 The Berwick-Pakenham Corridor: Historical Survey. Victoria Archaeological Survey Occasional Report Series No. 44. Victoria Archaeological Survey, Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne.

Howell-Meurs, J & A Long

2006 Pakenham Bypass Section 1 and 3. A Report to VicRoads.

Kajewski, P. & L. Matthews

2003 An Archaeological Survey 325 Princes Highway Officer, Victoria. Report for Peet and Company Limited.

Kennedy, S.

2008 Silcrete and the Outer City: investigating patterns of raw material use at Bend Road, Victoria. Honours Thesis. Archaeology Department, La Trobe University: Bundoora.

Land Conservation Council

1991 Melbourne Area. District Review. Descriptive Report. Land Conservation Council, Melbourne.



Marsden, MAH & H Mallett

1975 Quaternary Evolution, Morphology and Sediment Distribution, Western Port Bay, Victoria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 87: 107-138.

Massola, A 1959 History of the Coast Tribe. Victorian Naturalist Vol. 76: 180.

McBryde, I 1984 Kulin Greenstone Quarries: The Social Contexts of Production and Distribution for the Mt William Site. World Archaeology 16 (2): 167-185.

McConnell, A 1981 ‘Description of Stone Material Types’. In H Sullivan, An Archaeological Survey of the Mornington Peninsula, Victoria, pp. 158-160. Report to the Ministry for Conservation.

McDougall, K 1987 Sites of Botanical Significance in the Western Region of Melbourne. Department of Conservation, Forests and Land.

Mulvaney, D.J & J. Kamminga

1999 Prehistory of Australia. Allen and Unwin, St Leonards.

Murphy, A 1992 A Subsurface Investigation of Terraces Affected by Cardinia Creek Bypass, Officer, Victoria. A report to VicRoads.

2002 Bunyip State Park, A Preliminary Cultural Heritage Assessment. A report to Parks Victoria.

2003 Officer Farm, Officer: Cultural Heritage Assessment. A Report to Parklea Pty Ltd on Behalf of Mr Bert Damon.

2004(a) ‘Cardinia Lakes’, Abrehart Road, Pakenham, Cultural Heritage Assessment. A report to Peet & Co Ltd

2004(b)

62 Rix Road, Officer: Cultural Heritage Assessment. A Report to Maranantha Christian School.

Murphy, A & T Rymer

2007(a) Officer South Rising Main: Cultural Heritage Assessment. A Report to GHD Pty Ltd.

Murphy, A & T Rymer

2007(b) Officer South Rising Main, Officer: Sub-surface Testing Investigations. A Report to GHD Pty Ltd.

Murphy, A., S. Thomson and T Rymer

2007 Pakenham Bypass, Cardinia Creek Excavations. A report to Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd.



Murphy, A & T Rymer

2008 Sewer Rising Main, Officer South: Cultural Heritage Management Plan. Sponsored by South East Water Ltd.

Presland, G

1983 An Archaeological Survey of the Melbourne Metropolitan Area. Victoria Archaeological Survey, Ministry for Planning and Environment, Victoria.

1994 Aboriginal Melbourne. The Lost Land of the Kulin People. McPhee Gribble Publishers, Victoria.

Rhodes, D & J Bell

2004 Shire of Cardinia Urban Growth Corridor Aboriginal Heritage Study. A report to the Shire of Cardinia.

Rosengren, N & M Williams

1979 Sites of Geomorphological/Geological Significance in the Western Port Region. Study Area 1, Top of the Bay Area. Interim Report, Environmental Studies Program. Ministry for Conservation, Victoria.

Smith, L 1991 The Berwick-Pakenham Corridor. The Archaeological Survey of Aboriginal Sites. A report to the Victoria Archaeological Survey, Ministry for Planning and Development.

Snoek, W 1987 Archaeological Survey of Dandenong Creek and Police Paddocks. Report for the Dandenong Valley Authority and the Victoria Archaeological Survey.

Sullivan, H 1981 An Archaeological Survey of Mornington Peninsula, Victoria. Victoria Archaeological Survey Occasional Report No. 6. Department of Conservation and Environment, Victoria.

Symonds, S 1989 Healesville – History in the Hills. Pioneer Design Studio.

Thomas, DE 1967 Geological Survey of Victoria Bulletin No. 59: Geology of the Melbourne District Victoria. Mines Department, Melbourne.

Thomas, W 1838-1867

William Thomas Papers, 1838-67. Uncatalogued MSS, Set 214, Items 1-24. Mitchell Library, Sydney.

n.d. ML Private Papers, 16 Volumes and 8 Boxes of Papers, Journals, Letterbooks, Reports, etc. Uncatalogued manuscripts, Set 214, Items 1-24. Mitchell Library, Sydney.

n.d. PRO Official Report, Original Manuscripts, Two Papers. Public Records Office, Melbourne.



Tulloch, J 2001 A Cultural Heritage Survey of the Proposed Pakenham Bypass of the Princes Freeway from Beaconsfield to Nar Nar Goon, Victoria. A report to VicRoads.

Walsh, FJ 1987 The Influence of the Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Plant Food Resources on Traditional Martujarra Subsistence Strategies. Australian Archaeology 25: 88-101.

Internet Sites Australian Heritage Database

www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl (accessed 14.05.2009)

Bureau of Meteorology

www.bom.gov.au (accessed 14.05.2009)

Department of Sustainability & Environment

www.dse.vic.gov.au (accessed 14.05.2009)

Geoscience Australia

www.ga.gov.au/ (accessed 16.05.2009)

Heritage Victoria DSE

www.heritage.vic.gov.au/page_239.asp?ID=239&submit_action=ss (accessed 16.05.2009)

National Trust Australia (Victoria)

www.nattrust.com.au (accessed 16.05.2009)

Planning Schemes Online

www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/ (accessed 16.05.2009)

LEGISLATION Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (Vic) Heritage Act 1995 (Vic)



APPENDIX 1 – GLOSSARY



TYPES OF ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Artefact Scatter: A surface scatter of stone artefacts is defined as being the occurrence of five (5) or more items of cultural material within an area of about 100 square metres (AAV 1993). Artefact scatters are often the only physical remains of places where Aborigines have camped, prepared and eaten meals and worked stone material. Burials: Burial sites may occur in association with campsites, in mounds or shell middens or in specific burial grounds that lack any other cultural material. Softer ground was chosen for burials, and any sandy area can be expected to contain burials. Burial sites can contain one or a number of individuals. Burials sites and cemeteries are a common archaeological site type in the sand country adjoining the Murray River, though are a rare feature in the southern part of Victoria. Ceremonial Site: An area used as a meeting place where large groups gathered for feasts, ceremonies or settlement of disputes, but they are difficult or impossible to identify from material evidence. In some instances they are mentioned in historical sources, or may be known to Aboriginal people through oral tradition. These sites will be highly significant to Aboriginal communities. Contact Site: These are sites relating to the period of first contact between Aboriginal and European people. These sites may be associated with conflict between Aborigines and settlers, mission stations or reserves, or historic camping places. The artefact assemblage of contact sites will often include artefacts manufactured from glass. Grinding Grooves: These sites generally occur on sandstone outcrops and to a lesser extent granite outcrops and result from the sharpening of ground stone hatchets/axe heads. Grinding grooves are often located on prominent hilltops. Hearth: Usually a sub-surface feature found eroding out of a river or creek bank or in a sand dune - it indicates a place where Aboriginal people cooked food. The remains of a hearth are usually identifiable by the presence of charcoal and sometimes clay balls (like brick fragments) and hearth stones. Remains of burnt bone or shell are sometimes preserved within a hearth. In Situ: Refers to cultural material that is discovered as being undisturbed and considered to be in its original context. That is, material which, when identified is considered to be in the same location when the site was abandoned. Isolated Artefact Occurrence: An isolated artefact is defined as being the occurrence of four (4) or less items of cultural material within an area of about 100 metres (AAV 1993: 1). It/they can be evidence of an ephemeral (or one off) activity location, the results of an artefact being lost or discarded during travel or evidence of an artefact scatter which is otherwise obscured by poor ground surface visibility. Midden Sites: 'Midden' is a term borrowed from the Danish. It originally applied to the accumulations of shell and other food remains left by Mesolithic man in that country. Australian Midden sites are an accumulation of hearth and food debris, which has built up a deposit on the ground surface over a length of time. Middens are generally comprised of charcoal and either freshwater or coastal shell species, depending on the site's location. Midden sites may also contain stone artefacts, and the food refuse of other native animals such as small mammals. Their thick deposit of burnt shells and dark grey/black deposit can distinguish midden sites within the landscape. Coastal shell middens are often found in close association with rock platforms. Freshwater shell middens are found in close proximity to areas that provided freshwater mussels.



Mound Sites: Mound sites are accumulation of hearth (fire place) debris, which has over time built a thick deposit on the ground's surface. Mounds are generally comprised of charcoal; burnt clay balls and burnt food refuse such as native animal bones. Mound sites may also contain stone artefacts. On rare occasions mound sites may also contain human burial remains. Mound sites can be distinguished in the landscape by their characteristic dark grey/black deposit and height above surrounding land. Mounds that have been utilised over long periods can obtain dimensions of over 100 metres in length and 1 metre in height. Mound sites are generally situated close to major streams, and large water bodies. In times of flood, mound sites are often become marooned, and provide dry land points from which surrounding resources could have been exploited. Rock Shelter/Cave: These are sites that are located within a rock shelter/overhang or caves. The archaeological deposits within such sites can vary considerably but are often predominantly lithic. Depending on their location, the archaeological deposit may also include midden deposits of shellfish, fish or terrestrial fauna. Due to the often undisturbed deposits at these sites, they are potentially very valuable sites and are generally considered of high scientific significance. Instances where rock shelter sites also possess art work on the stone walls are considered as rock shelter/art site combined. Rock Wells: Rock Wells are natural cavities in rock outcrops that hold water. They are characterised by relatively narrow openings that limit evaporation. These water sources were commonly known to Aboriginal people and were kept clean and maintained by them. Since they are natural features, they are difficult to identify as Aboriginal sites. The most reliable indicator is the existence of a strong local oral tradition of Aboriginal use. Scarred Tree: Scars on trees may be the result of removal of strips of bark by Aborigines for the manufacture of utensils, canoes or for shelter; or resulting from small notches chopped into the bark to provide toe and hand holds for climbers after possums, koalas and/or views of the surrounding area. A scar made by humans as opposed to naturally made by branches falling off, etc. is distinguished by the following criteria: symmetry and rounded ends, scar does not extend to the ground, some re-growth has occurred around the edges of the scar, and no holes or knots present in the heartwood. Stone Arrangements: These sites are specifically patterned rocks located on the ground’s surface. It is often difficult to identify these sites within the field and even more difficult to define their function unless Aboriginal oral tradition exists. ABORIGINAL ARTEFACT TYPES Anvil: A portable flat stone, usually a river pebble, which has been used as a base for working stone. Anvils that have been used frequently have a small circular depression in the centre where cores were held while being struck. An anvil is often a multifunctional tool used also as a grindstone and hammer stone. Artefact: Any product made by human hands or caused to be made through human actions. Axe: A stone artefact that has been ground on one or more sides to produce a sharp edge. Backed Blade (Geometric Microlith): A blade flake that has been abruptly retouched along one or more margins opposite an acute (sharp) edge. Backed pieces include backed blades and geometric microliths. Flakes that have been backed along one lateral margin and that come to a point at their distal end; they have a length of less than 80mm and are asymmetrical around the longitudinal axis. They are thought to have been hafted onto wooden handles to produce composite cutting tools or spears. Backed blades are a feature of the ‘Australian Small Tool Tradition’ dating from between 5,000 and 1,000 years ago in southern Australia (Mulvaney 1975).



Bipolar: A core or a flake, which, presumably, has been struck on an anvil. That is, the core from which the flake has been struck has been rotated before the flake has been struck off. Bifacial platforms tend to indicate that the flake has come off a heavily worked core. Blade: A long parallel sided flake from a specially prepared core. Blade flakes are twice as long as they are wide. Broad Platform: This a term used to describe the shape of the platform on a flake. A broad platform is wider than the body of a flake. Broad platform flakes are produced when flakes are struck off back from the edge of the platform on a core. Broken Flake: Defined by the part of the flake remaining, i.e. proximal (where the platform is present), medial (where neither the platform nor termination is present), or distal (where the termination is present). Bulb of Percussion: This is the conchoidal protuberance (percussion rings) formed under the point of impact when a flake is struck off the core. Burin: A truncated flake (truncated either by snapping or retouch) whose resulting flat end is used as a platform from which to strike a single flake from one of its corners, forming a triangular scar that runs down the margin of the original flake. This forms a chisel-like working edge. Complete Flake: An artefact exhibiting a ventral surface (where the flake was originally connected to the core), dorsal surface (the surface that used to be part of the exterior of the core, platform, termination and bulb of percussion. Core: An artefact from which flakes have been detached using a hammer stone. Core types include blade, single platform, multiplatform and bipolar forms. These artefacts exhibit a series of negative flake scars, each of which represents the removal of a flake. Core Types:

Unidirectional cores - These cores have scars originating from a single platform, and all the flakes struck from the core have been struck in the same direction from that platform. Bidirectional cores - These cores have two platforms, one opposite the other; flakes have been struck from each of the platforms, and thus from opposite directions. Bifacial cores - These kinds of core have a single platform, but the flakes struck from it have been detached from two core faces. Multidirectional cores - These cores have two or more platforms and there is no clear pattern, either in the orientation of the platforms or in the orientation of the scars resulting from the striking of flakes from those platforms. Bipolar Core - Nodules or cobbles that are flaked using an anvil. The resulting artefacts exhibit crushing on their proximal, distal and often their lateral margins, where they have been rotated.

Cortex: Original or natural (non-flaked) surface of a stone. Flaked Piece/Waste Flake/Debitage: A piece of stone with definite flake surfaces that cannot be classified as a flake or core. These artefact types are generally refuse materials discarded during the working of stone material. Focal Platform: This is a term used to describe the shape of the platform on a flake. A focal platform is narrower than the body of the flake. Focal platform flakes are produced when flakes are struck off near the edge of the platform on a core.



Geometric Microlith: Artefacts less than 80mm in maximum dimension which are backed at one or their end, sometimes at both ends, and sometimes on one lateral margin as well, the result being a form that is symmetrical around its transverse axis. Hammerstone: A cobble or cobble fragment exhibiting pitting and abrasion as a result of percussion. Implement: A general term for tools, weapons, etc. made by people. Lithic: Anything made of stone. Microlith: Small (1-3cm long) stone tools with evidence of retouch that includes ‘Bondi Points’, segments, scrapers, backed blades, triangle and trapezoid. Mortar: The lower stone associated with grinding plants for food and medicine and/or ochre for painting. These stones are usually large and flat, and when well used show deep grooves from repeated grinding. Notched tool: Flakes that exhibit a small area of retouch, forming a concave edge, on their lateral or distal margins. Pestle: The “upper stone”, used to grind plants for food and medicine and/or ochre for painting. A pestle stone often doubles as a hammer stone and/or anvil Piercer: Artefacts with projections that have been created by retouch and extend up to 15mm beyond the body of the flake. Primary Flake: The first flakes struck off a core in order to create a platform from which other flakes can then be struck. Scraper: A flake with one or more margins of continuous retouch used as a tool for scraping. Secondary Flaking/Retouch: Secondary working of a stone artefact after its manufacture. This was often done to re-sharpen stone tools after use, or in the production of formal tool types such as blade flakes and scrapers. Thumbnail Scraper: A small flake with a convex scraper edge shaped like a thumbnail and located opposite the flake’s platform. OTHER TERMS Archaeological Site: A place/location of either Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal origin. Aboriginal archaeological sites have been formed prior to the European settlement of Australia. Artefact Horizon: A discernable horizontal distribution of artefacts within an environmental deposit. An artefact horizon has generally suffered a degree of post depositional disturbance that has affected the spatial and temporal integrity of the deposits and associated artefact assemblage. B.P.: Before present. The ‘Present’ is defined as 1950. Continuous Monitoring: Continuously on site during clear, cut, grade and level to record sites.



Cultural Heritage: Something that is inherited or passed down because it is appreciated and cherished. Categories of cultural heritage include; built structures and their surrounds, gardens, trees; cultural landscapes; sites; areas; precincts; cemeteries; ruins and archaeological sites; shipwrecks; sites of important events; commemorative sites; contents of buildings and significant relics, objects artefacts and collections of objects. Cultural Landscape Integrity: The level of which the local landscape reflects the environment in which pre-contact Aboriginal people or early European settlers lived. The integrity includes all relevant aspects such as level and type of vegetation cover, hydrology, landforms and structures. A site located in a landscape of high cultural integrity has greater heritage value as it remains in context, and is therefore able to impart a greater level of information to the broader community. Environmental Deposit: A stratigraphic layer formed by the laying down of deposits by environmental agents such as wind and water. These may bury human artefacts to form stratigraphic layers but do not form occupation deposits. Ethnography: The scientific description of living cultures. Heritage Place/Site: An area or region of land that represents a particular focus of past human activity or concentration of in situ cultural material. A place includes any structures, buildings or works upon or integral with the land, and any artefacts or other physical relic associated with the land, or it may have no visible evidence of human activity, being rather the site of a past event of importance or the embodiment of a particular belief or legend. Examples might range from an Aboriginal ceremonial ground, a pioneers house and contents, a shop, the remains of an early whaling station or a recent fish farm, Captain Cook’s landing place, a 40,000 year old Aboriginal campsite or a 1990s brick-veneer house, a shipwreck, an industrial or mining landscape, a bus stop, a Macassan trepanger campsite or the Surfer’s Paradise Caravan Park, a garbage dump, the local war memorial, a garden, an Aboriginal rock painting or a band rotunda. Historic Archaeological Site: These are places where non-Aboriginal activities have occurred, and which little extant (standing) features remain. The bulk of evidence for historic occupation/utilisation is comprised of remains (artefacts/foundations etc) that are located on the ground’s surface or in a sub-surface context. The primary heritage value of an archaeological site is scientific. Historic Site: Sites/Areas that contain extant (standing) remains of pre-1950 non-Aboriginal occupation. Historic sites may or may not also contain archaeological remains (Aboriginal and/or historic). Holocene, Recent or Postglacial Period: The time from the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age (c. 10,300 BP) to the present day. Horizon: A term used to describe a layer of archaeological material that is in situ. Integrity: The completeness of the place or site. Sites/places of high integrity will adequately demonstrate the significance of a place/site. Integrity is reduced by the disturbance of fabric/deposits or the introduction of unrelated materials/sediments.

0% No Integrity 0-10% Very Poor 10-30% Poor 30-50% Fair 50-75% Good 75-95% Very Good 95-100% Excellent



Mechanical Salvage: Controlled mechanical removal of ground surface by excavator and trimming bucket in 5 to 10cm layers to record sites using at a minimum a handheld GPS. Obtrusiveness: refers to how conspicuous a site is within a particular landscape, and thus the possibility of positive identification within a field environment. Some site types are more conspicuous than others are. Thus a surface stone artefact scatter is generally not obtrusive, especially in areas of low ground surface visibility, while a scarred tree is (Bird 1992). Occupation Deposit: The laying down of deposits (artefacts and/or sediments) by human activities that bury artefacts to form distinct stratigraphic entities such as layers (e.g. dense lens of stone artefacts & bone between environmental deposits, stratified shell deposits) or features (hearths, occupation mounds). Occupation deposits have a high degree of spatial and temporal integrity. Occupation Surface: A distinct layer or interface between depositional strata upon which human activities were carried out and artefacts/features deposited. Most commonly this may be a prior land surface (e.g. soil horizon) that has been subsequently buried by later environmental deposits (e.g. dune deposits). Ordovician: The geological time period dating from 439-510 million years ago. Pleistocene: The geological period corresponding with the last or Great Ice Age. The onset of the Pleistocene is marked by an increasingly cold climate, by the appearance of Calambrian mollusca and Villafranchian fauna with elephant, ox, and horse species, and by changes in foraminifera. The oldest form of man had evolved by the Early Pleistocene, and in archaeological terms the cultures classed as Palaeolithic all fall within this period. The date for the start of the Pleistocene is not well established, and estimates vary from 3.5 to 1.3 million years ago. The period ends with the final but gradual retreat of the ice sheets, which reached their present conditions around 10,300 BP. Post-Contact Aboriginal Site: Also referred to as Historic Aboriginal Site. These area sites/places/localities that indicate contact has been made with European culture during the period of initial European settlement (glass in tool assemblage, massacre sites), or where activities culturally significant to Aboriginal people has occurred (camping, employment, travelling routes). Potential: Based on collated existing data and site inspection an area or specific site may contain the potential for extant or archaeological deposits. Background research will present the most likely site types, contents and state of preservation. Relative levels of potential are described as Low (10-30% probability), Moderate (40-60% probability) and High (70% and above probability). Raw Material: Organic or inorganic matter that has not been processed by people. Retain Site: Site is to be retained in open space with strict management controls on the future use of the land to prevent damage to sub-surface archaeological deposits. For sites rated moderate to high some of the less significant portions of the site may be destroyed in conjunction with continuous monitoring, mechanical salvage and salvage excavation. Salvage Excavation: Salvage excavation involves controlled hand excavation to recover a representative sample of sites. Silurian: A geological time period from 408 to 439 million years ago. Site Inspection: Weekly or fortnightly site visits during clear, cut, grade and level.



Slope Wash: A term used to describe a specific process of re-deposition of cultural material. Cultural material (most often stone artefacts) that is situated on any sloping land is vulnerable to the affects of slope wash. The term relates to the downward movement of cultural material primarily due to erosion of their original context. This downward movement is most often caused by clearing of vegetation that exposes the ground surface to the affects of water erosion. The result is that cultural material will move down the slope over a period of time. How far material may move is dependent on the gradient and the intensity of the erosion. Stratigraphy: Layering Use Wear: Tiny flakes or chips that have been broken off the edges of a stone artefact during use. Visibility: Refers to the degree to which the surface of the ground can be observed. This may be influenced by natural processes such as wind erosion or the character of the native vegetation, and by land use practices, such as ploughing or grading. It is generally expressed in terms of the percentage of the ground’s surface visible for an observer on foot (Bird 1992). For example 10% visibility equates to 10cm2 per 1m2 of ground surface that is not covered by vegetation or soil deposit. The following applies to descriptions of ground surface visibility within this report.

0% = No visible ground surface 0 – 10% = Very Poor 10 – 30% = Poor 30 - 50% = Fair 50 – 70% = Good 70 – 90% = Very Good 90 – 100% = Excellent

REFERENCES

Aboriginal Affairs Victoria 1997 Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting upon Archaeological Surveys in Victoria. AAV, Melbourne.

Bird, CFM 1992 Archaeology of the Goulburn River Basin. A Background Study. Heritage Services Branch, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

Clark, D & JP Wesson

1980 Alcoa Portland Aluminium Smelter. Working Paper No. 2.

Mulvaney, DJ 1975 The Prehistory of Australia. Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Oxford University Press 1976 Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Pearson, M & S Sullivan

1995 Looking After Heritage Places – The Basics of Heritage Planning for Managers, Landowners and Administrators. Melbourne University Press.

Heritage Victoria 2000 Victorian Heritage Strategy. Heritage Victoria, Department of Infrastructure.

Holdaway, S & N Stern

2004 A Record in Stone: the Study of Australia’s Flaked Stone Artefacts. Museum Victoria and Aboriginal Studies Press, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra.



APPENDIX 2 – CONSERVATION PRINICPLES OF THE BURRA CHARTER

The Burra Charter The Australia ICOMOS charter for the conservation of places

of cultural significance 1.4 Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural

significance.

Conservation Principles

Article 2 Conservation and management

2.1 Places of cultural significance should be conserved.

2.2 The aim of conservation is to retain the cultural significance of a place.

2.3 Conservation is an integral part of good management of places of cultural significance.

2.4 Places of cultural significance should be safeguarded and not put at risk or left in a vulnerable state.

Article 3 Cautious approach

3.1 Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible.

The traces of additions, alterations and earlier treatments to the fabric of a place are evidence of its history and uses which may be part of its significance. Conservation action should assist and not impede their understanding.

3.2 Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture.

Article 4 Knowledge, skills and techniques

4.1 Conservation should make use of all the knowledge, skills and disciplines which can contribute to the study and care of the place.

4.2 Traditional techniques and materials are preferred for the conservation of significant fabric. In some circumstances modern techniques and materials which offer substantial conservation benefits may be appropriate.

The use of modern materials and techniques must be supported by firm scientific evidence or by a body of experience.

Article 5 Values

5.1 Conservation of a place should identify and take into consideration all aspects of cultural and natural significance without unwarranted emphasis on any one value at the expense of others.

Conservation of places with natural significance is explained in the Australian Natural Heritage Charter. This Charter defines natural significance to mean the importance of ecosystems, biological diversity and geodiversity for their existence value, or for present or future generations in terms of their scientific, social, aesthetic and life-support value.

5.2 Relative degrees of cultural significance may lead to different conservation actions at a place.

A cautious approach is needed, as understanding of cultural significance may change. This article should not be used to

justify actions which do not retain cultural significance.

Article 6 Burra Charter Process

6.1 The cultural significance of a place and other issues affecting its future are best understood by a sequence of collecting and analysing information before making decisions. Understanding cultural significance comes first, then development of policy and finally management of the place in accordance with the policy.

The Burra Charter process, or sequence of investigations, decisions and actions, is illustrated in the accompanying flowchart.

6.2 The policy for managing a place must be based on an understanding of its cultural significance.

6.3 Policy development should also include consideration of other factors affecting the future of a place such as the owner’s needs, resources, external constraints and its physical condition.

Article 7 Use

7.1 Where the use of a place is of cultural significance it should be retained.

7.2 A place should have a compatible use. The policy should identify a use or combination of uses or constraints on uses that retain the cultural significance of the place. New use of a place should involve minimal change, to significant fabric and use; should respect associations and meanings; and where appropriate should provide for continuation of practices which contribute to the cultural significance of the place.

Article 8 Setting

Conservation requires the retention of an appropriate visual setting and other relationships that contribute to the cultural significance of the place.

New construction, demolition, intrusions or other changes which would adversely affect the setting or relationships are not appropriate.

Aspects of the visual setting may include use, siting, bulk, form, scale, character, colour, texture and materials.

Other relationships, such as historical connections, may contribute to interpretation, appreciation, enjoyment or experience of the place.

Article 9 Location

9.1 The physical location of a place is part of its cultural significance. A building, work or other component of a place should remain in its historical location. Relocation is generally unacceptable unless this is the sole practical means of ensuring its survival.

9.2 Some buildings, works or other components of places were designed to be readily removable or already have a history of relocation. Provided such buildings, works or other components do not have

significant links with their present location, removal may be appropriate.

9.3 If any building, work or other component is moved, it should be moved to an appropriate location and given an appropriate use. Such action should not be to the detriment of any place of cultural significance.

Article 10 Contents

Contents, fixtures and objects which contribute to the cultural significance of a place should be retained at that place. Their removal is unacceptable unless it is: the sole means of ensuring their security and preservation; on a temporary basis for treatment or exhibition; for cultural reasons; for health and safety; or to protect the place. Such contents, fixtures and objects should be returned where circumstances permit and it is culturally appropriate.

Article 11 Related places and objects

The contribution which related places and related objects make to the cultural significance of the place should be retained.

Article 12 Participation

Conservation, interpretation and management of a place should provide for the participation of people for whom the place has special associations and meanings, or who have social, spiritual or other cultural responsibilities for the place.

Article 13 Co-existence of cultural values

Co-existence of cultural values should be recognised, respected and encouraged, especially in cases where they conflict.

For some places, conflicting cultural values may affect policy development and management decisions. In this article, the term cultural values refers to those beliefs which are important to a cultural group, including but not limited to political, religious, spiritual and moral beliefs. This is broader than values associated with cultural significance.



APPENDIX 3 – ADVICE ON CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLANS

Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006

Information Sheet Cultural Heritage Management Plans and Planning Large scale developments and many activities in culturally sensitive landscapes – for example coastal dunes or areas near water – can cause significant harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage. The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 prescribes, in regulations, the circumstances in which a Cultural Heritage Management Plan will be required.

What is a Cultural Heritage Management Plan?

Preparation of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan involves a cultural heritage advisor (an archaeologist or other heritage specialist) working with Aboriginal community representatives to identify and assess cultural heritage values in relation to a proposed development or activity.

A Cultural Heritage Management Plan assesses whether a project will have any impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage values and, as appropriate, outlines management recommendations.

A Cultural Heritage Management Plan is a written report containing the results of the assessment and recommendations for measures to be taken before, during and after an activity to manage and protect Aboriginal cultural heritage in the area.

Preparation of a Plan is commissioned and paid for by the project proponent (sponsor).

Why introduce this system?

Most large infrastructure development projects in Victoria – such as freeways, rail developments, pipelines and mines – are preceded by an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment containing such recommendations.

However, many forms of land development have gone ahead with no consideration of their potential impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage. Each year approximately 200 sites of significance are destroyed around the state.

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 provides guidance to developers, industry and others on the circumstances that will trigger the need for an approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan, which will allow heritage to be considered in the planning stages of a project.

For certain activities, Government agencies, local councils and other authorities need to check whether there is an approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan for activities before issuing a statutory approvals such as a work authority, licence or planning permit.

What sort of activities will attract a Cultural Heritage Management Plan?

Examples of activities that will require preparation of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan include:

• Developments that require an Environment Effects Statement.

• Larger scale residential or industrial subdivisions on areas of cultural heritage sensitivity, which have not previously been significantly disturbed.

• Substantial infrastructure or resource development projects on areas of cultural heritage sensitivity, which have not previously been significantly disturbed.

Other circumstances requiring a Cultural Heritage Management Plan are prescribed in the Regulations.

Who will approve a Cultural Heritage Management Plan?

Where a Registered Aboriginal Party exists they must be notified of a proponent’s intention to prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan and will then evaluate the Plan.

Once a Cultural Heritage Management Plan has been approved by a Registered Aboriginal Party, it must then be lodged with the Secretary of the Department for Victorian Communities (DVC) to take affect.

1

2

What if there is no Registered Aboriginal Party?

Where a Registered Aboriginal Party does not exist the Secretary of the DVC will evaluate a Cultural Heritage Management Plan for that area.

What if there is more than one Registered Aboriginal Party?

In most areas, there is expected to be one Registered Aboriginal Party. However, if there is more than one, all relevant registered Aboriginal Parties have equal powers regarding the Cultural Heritage Management Plan procedure and outcome.

How much will evaluation of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan cost?

A fee is charged by the Registered Aboriginal Party responsible for evaluating the Cultural Heritage Management Plan.

Evaluation costs are greater for more complex Cultural Heritage Management Plans and less where plans are simpler. Evaluation costs are tabulated in the regulations.

Can a decision to reject a Cultural Heritage Management Plan be appealed?

Yes, there are new appeal rights. If a decision is made by a Registered Aboriginal Party not to approve a Cultural Heritage Management Plan, this may be appealed at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Where more than one Registered Aboriginal Party is involved in an evaluation and they disagree, the Act establishes a process for resolving this kind of dispute, facilitated through the Aboriginal Heritage Council.

How does the requirement to prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan relate to planning approvals?

Authorities like state government agencies and local councils will not be able to make decisions on prescribed planning applications until an approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan has been completed, if one is required.

If an approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan is required but is not included with an application, authorities must refer the application back to the proponent for preparation of a Plan.

The Act encourages project proponents to consider Aboriginal cultural heritage and work with Registered Aboriginal Parties before applying to an authority for an approval. Understanding the cultural heritage management issues at an early stage means that there is maximum flexibility in dealing with these issues and removes delays.

Can I do a Cultural Heritage Management Plan even if I don’t have to?

The Act allows for voluntary Cultural Heritage Management Plans to be prepared. Once approved, these provide the same benefits in terms of certainty as required Plans.

Further Information

If you would like more information please contact:

Aboriginal Affairs VictoriaDepartment for Victorian CommunitiesGPO 2392Melbourne Victoria 3001 http:www1.dvc.vic.gov.au/aav/

Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) Process

The following diagram is an example of the process a developer would follow when seeking approvals for a large scale subdivision.

Developer decides that a CHMP is required after checking the Regulations and any published guidelines.

Developer notifies the Secretary, DVC and any relevant Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP).

RAP Responds to developer (within 14 days) and elects to evaluate the CHMP.

Developer prepares CHMP.

Developer submits finished CHMP and prescribed fee to RAP for evaluation.

RAP then has 30 days to review CHMP and to notify developer of any decision.

Developer provides a copy of CHMP in support of application to Local Council for a Residential Subdivision Permit.

Local Council able to decide whether to grant or refuse approval for the subdivision.

Developer engages Cultural Heritage Advisor to prepare the CHMP as appropriate.

Developer submits application to Local Council without an approved CHMP.

Local Council advises that it is a prescribed activity on senstive land and that it cannot make a planning decision without an approved CHMP.

OR

If RAP refuses to approve the Plan, the developer is able to appeal at VCAT

3

officer precinct structure plan · 2018-08-02 · officer precinct structure plan desktop cultural...

Documents